Nigeria: Petroleum, Pollution and Poverty in the Niger Delta

On Tuesday June 30,  Amnesty International released a major report detailing the the pollution and environmental damage caused by the oil companies while the Nigerian government continues to favor the oil companies and not the people of the Niger Delta. 

“Oil companies have been exploiting Nigeria’s weak regulatory system for too long,” said Audrey Gaughran of Amnesty International. “They do not adequately prevent environmental damage and they frequently fail to properly address the devastating impact that their bad practice has on people’s lives.”

This 143-page report covers explains how decades of neglect, human rights abuses and environmental damage has contributed to the current crisis in the Niger Delta.

Read the  Summary and Full Report

Share on Facebook

Last week, President Umaru Yar’Adua released a proclamation of amnesty for all militants in the Niger Delta that includes the release of  Henry Okah,  a militant leader imprisoned since 2007 among others, on the condition of a full disarmament and an end to bombings and kidnapping by militant groups.  However, there has been much criticism of the offer of amnesty because it does not address the root causes of underdevelopment in the Niger Delta and the stakeholders from the Delta were not part of the conversation regarding the amnesty agreement.

MEND, the political militant group is rejecting the amnesty for now, saying that the amnesty plays into the hands of those who are criminals with no political agenda and does not address their concerns of federalism, resource control, extra-judicial killings by the Joint Task Force (JTF) and development of the Niger Delta.

Civil society also does not believe that the amnesty offer has much strength.  Felix Toudolor, the Chairman on Security and Community Development of Ijaw Youth Council told a Nigerian publication called NEXT that there is an urgent need to address the problem of crime and violence in the region. He explained that the council had come up with a road map to achieve a genuine resolution of the crisis and that granting amnesty to militants without fulfilling certain conditions would be fruitless. He said that a peaceful agreement and a national conference of all stakeholders should be convened before the implementation of the amnesty.

Below is a commentary on the amnesty from famed Nigerian author, Wole Soyinka

The Times of Nigeria: Niger Delta: Between Amnesty And Amnesia

26 June 2009

By Wole Soyinka

Bleak as the Delta situation appears to be, given the recent escalation of violence, we may actually be approaching a stage of possible resolution – touch wood! This is why, albeit with much reluctance, I feel I should respond publicly to the spate of entreaties and expressions of anxiety coming my way over my perceived adoption of a ‘siddon-look’ attitude towards the troubled region.

Professor Wole Soyinka

Such pressures have increased dramatically over the past few days, following – perhaps non-coincidentally – public responses by presidential candidate Pat Utomi, Ambassador Segun Olusola and others to President Yar’Adua’s latest offer of an Amnesty offer to Delta militants.

Let me begin by conveying my full endorsement of the position of these two. The offer of amnesty is worthless if it is not all-inclusive, and embraces those who are currently in state custody and/or on trial. The attempt in some quarters to confuse issues by refusing to separate the principled militants, such as members of MEND and its affiliates, from the opportunistic mercenaries and criminals, has always struck me as dishonest and diversionary. Separating the wheat from the chaff is a simple enough process, one that can be undertaken by a miniaturized Truth and Reconciliation version of the South African original, adapted to our own unique set of circumstances – and preferably with a change of emphasis that substitutes ‘Restitution’ for ‘Reconciliation’, keeping the latter on the agenda however as the implicit, ultimate destination. This has always been my position even over the South African process.

May I comment here also that the excitement over the ‘discovery’ of documents in one over-run insurgent camp, implicating well-heeled citizens as backers of the resistance has been nothing but amusing.  Read Full Article

Share on Facebook

IRIN: Humanitarian news and analysis
a project of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

ABUJA, 11 June 2009 (IRIN) - With access to Nigeria’s Delta creeks still restricted, the extent of the impact of military operations on Delta residents remains unclear, say rescue workers.

The village of Kurutie, not far from Oporoza after the attacks

Niger Delta residents who fled to Warri local government area, in Delta state, are still unable to return to their homes as military forces continue to search for militants in the creeks, according to the Nigerian Red Cross representative in Delta state Ecocity Egbero.

Government soldiers launched a military operation in the creeks of Delta state on 13 May to crack down on Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) militants.

“For now the possibility of the displaced people going back soon is ruled out because the waterways are not yet open. The joint military task force is still conducting operations in the area because they say there are some militant camps they are yet to reach,” Egbero told IRIN.

The Nigerian Red Cross visited some villages in the creeks, escorted by military forces, on 26 May but have not been able to return since, he said.

Delta state governor, Emmanuel Uduaghan, toured the creeks on 6 and 7 June, visiting the village of Okerenkoko, the heart of the military operation. The delegation found just four elderly men, who reportedly told the governor they did not want to leave.

Displaced

Some 1,500 creek residents are still sheltering in a makeshift displaced persons camp, set up in a school at Ogbe Ijoh, capital of Warri, says Egbero.

“Some people are also hiding near the camps for fear of being arrested. They show themselves only when supplies are being made available to the displaced people.”

While conditions in the displaced camp have improved, say residents, there are still no toilets, forcing people to relieve themselves in the bush or in town.

Observers and rights groups have not been able to confirm the number of civilians killed in the military operation. Some rights groups say the military was more restrained and more careful about targeting militants than it has been in past offensives.

The Red Cross’s Egbero told IRIN he could not say how many died but reported seeing people with gunshot wounds in Warri.

Delta residents remain afraid, he said. “Fear rules the Niger Delta today,” Egbero told IRIN.

Military operation not the answer

Even if targeted, the military offensive is not the answer, said Corinne Dufka, head of Human Rights Watch (HRW) for West Africa. “A military response will not tackle the underlying issues of poverty and inequality which continue to foment violence in the Delta region,” she told IRIN.

President Umaru Yar’Adua’s administration has created new ministries and committees on the Delta, but these have not yet led to change, HRW said in a letter to the President midway through his first term.

“The government must address the causes of the political discontent in the Delta, including the endemic corruption that sustains the shocking levels of poverty in the midst of tremendous oil wealth,” said HRW’s Nigeria researcher Eric Guttschuss.

Share on Facebook

Niger Delta Fumble

Abuja’s new ‘military solution’ won’t stop the fighting in this oil-rich region.

Opinion Piece By RICHARD MONCRIEFF

Reprinted from June 10 Wall Street Journal

After five years of serious unrest in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria, the government in Abuja is launching a major security crackdown to bring order to the area. The unrest in an oil-producing region in a major west African state is a serious problem both inside and outside the country’s borders. Which is why it matters that the government’s plan won’t work.

There can be no doubting the seriousness of the conflict in the delta. Grievances on the part of local populations over environmental damage and low levels of development escalated in 2004 with the emergence of organized armed militant groups, often linked to local politicians, who demand more resources for the region. They have targeted oil companies, which they accuse of being complicit with a negligent government, and have engaged in a protracted fight with security forces. Criminal groups, often engaged in kidnappings, are now as prominent as the politically motivated militants, and criminal and political motivations have become blurred.

The situation has the potential to become a humanitarian crisis. The unrest is an impediment to Nigeria’s economic development; oil output has fallen 38% since 2006 thanks to the conflict and government revenues are down as a result. Violence in the delta also threatens regional stability. Last year, a group looking a lot like a Niger delta gang carried out a bank raid in a town within Cameroon near the Nigerian border. The capital of Equatorial Guinea, Malabo, suffered a spectacular attack by a gang in speedboats who went as far as shooting up the presidential compound. The real motives of this attack remain unknown, but the gang is widely suspected of having links to Niger delta militants and other criminals.

Since coming to power in 2007, Nigerian President Umaru Yar’Adua’s response to the region’s troubles has been incoherent, indecisive and unproductive. In the first months of his administration, he proposed a Niger Delta Summit. Lengthy preparations ate up valuable time and energy that could have been devoted to real dialogue with community leaders, but the summit never happened. Then in September 2008, he established a Technical Committee to review options for resolving the crisis. In December the committee submitted a report to the president recommending a number of measures related to youth disarmament, an amnesty for militants, accelerated progress on the region’s infrastructure, including electrical power, and more independent regulation of oil pollution. But, aside from some as yet unspecified plans for amnesty for delta militants, nothing has been done.

Now, within the past few weeks, Mr. Yar’Adua appears to have decided on a strategy based on defeating the militants militarily. The president has implemented a massive increase in manpower and equipment for the so-called Joint Task Force, a force tasked with maintaining order in the area and combating militancy and kidnapping. The force is composed of army, navy, anti-riot police and more recently air force elements. This has been followed by a sustained but poorly targeted offensive against militants. Military helicopters have shelled and shot up militant bases. Neighboring villages have been targeted in subsequent manhunts for militant targets.

Militants have responded in kind, killing 12 soldiers in one ambush on May 21, according to several press reports. Specifics are hard to verify at present, not least because journalists and, until recently, aid workers have been barred from the operation area, but details are starting to come out. Hundreds of civilians may have been killed, with many more wounded and thousands displaced.

History suggests this military ramp-up will have little lasting effect. Previous strong-arm measures, such as a military offensive in September 2008, have done little to degrade the militants’ capacity effectively or permanently. Instead, military operations have only further militarized the region and undercut moderate civil society voices calling for peaceful change from within the very Niger Delta ethnic groups where the violent militants draw support. The wide availability of small arms, the delta’s difficult mangrove swamp terrain, and widespread local anger at government policies — which current civilian casualties are already exacerbating — all indicate that things may be little different this time round.

Instead of pursuing yet another military solution, Mr. Yar’Adua may want to consider a different path. To start, he could order an immediate ceasefire and begin a gradual withdrawal of the Joint Task Force. Certainly, it is clear that some elements of Niger delta militancy have become criminal. To ensure basic law and order in the force’s wake, Abuja needs to put in place a better-trained police force accountable to appropriate civilian authorities. On the political side, the Nigerian government must acknowledge the genuine grievances of the delta’s populations and address the multiple needs of the area. The Technical Committee’s recommendations would be a good starting point.

The most controversial issue will be the division of oil revenues between the federal and local governments. Abuja currently returns only 13% of the delta region’s oil wealth to local leaders. Delta moderates and militants alike argue this percentage should be much higher, while leaders from other Nigerian regions that are also dependent on delta oil money strongly disagree. The task force recommended 25%. While the exact figure needs to be negotiated taking country-wide views into account, an increase would be justified on grounds such as the environmental damage to the delta area caused by the oil exploration.

Community leaders in the delta also have called for stronger action on oil sector pollution, improved youth employment schemes and for infrastructure development. Such measures will also be necessary to give young people a sustainable alternative to militancy.

The Nigerian government’s aggressive response to the problems of militancy in the Niger delta stands in contrast to its apparent unwillingness to lay out a clear plan for developing the region, or to engage with community groups. By foregoing opportunities for dialogue in favor of an attempted military solution, the government merely is perpetuating a vicious circle of violence. Without a sustained political effort, Mr. Yar’Adua’s current security crackdown will have only a very short-lived impact. That will be a tragedy for the country, and an economic and strategic problem for the region — and the Western importers of Nigerian oil.

Mr. Moncrieff is West Africa Project Director at the International Crisis Group.

Read the IGC’s April 2009 Report on the Niger Delta

Share on Facebook

Settlement Reached in Human Rights Cases Against Royal Dutch/Shell

On Eve of Trial, Settlement Agreements Provide $15.5 Million for Compensation to Nigerian Human Rights Activists and to Establish Trust Fund

Reprinted from Wiwavshell.org

Official Statement from Plaintiffs

Official Statement from Attorneys

New York, June 8, 2009 — Today, the parties in Wiwa v. Shell agreed to settle human rights claims charging the Royal Dutch/Shell company, its Nigerian subsidiary, Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC or Shell Nigeria), and the former head of its Nigerian operation, Brian Anderson, with complicity in the torture, killing, and other abuses of Ogoni leader Ken Saro-Wiwa and other non-violent Nigerian activists in the mid-1990s in the Ogoni region of the Niger Delta.

The settlement, whose terms are public, provides a total of $15.5 million. These funds will compensate the 10 plaintiffs, who include family members of the deceased victims; establish a Trust intended to benefit the Ogoni people; and cover a portion of plaintiffs’ legal fees and costs. The settlement is only on behalf of the individual plaintiffs for their individual claims. It does not resolve outstanding issues between Shell and the Ogoni people, and the plaintiffs did not negotiate on behalf of the Ogoni people.

Plaintiff Ken Saro-Wiwa, Jr., the son of Ken Saro-Wiwa explained, “In reaching this settlement, we were very much aware that we are not the only Ogonis who have suffered in our struggle with Shell, which is why we insisted on creating the Kiisi Trust.” The Kiisi Trust—Kiisi means “Progress” in the plaintiffs’ Ogoni language—will allow for initiatives in Ogoni for educational endowments, skills development, agricultural development, women’s programs, small enterprise support, and adult literacy.

Judith Chomsky, cooperating attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), one of the attorneys who initiated the lawsuit, stated, “The fortitude shown by our clients in the 13-year struggle to hold Shell accountable has helped establish a principle that goes beyond Shell and Nigeria—that corporations, no matter how powerful, will be held to universal human rights standards.”

Added Jennie Green, the CCR staff attorney who initiated the lawsuit in 1996, “This was one of the first cases to charge a multinational corporation with human rights violations, and this settlement confirms that multinational corporations can no longer act with the impunity they once enjoyed.”

Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, Wiwa v. SPDC, and Wiwa v. Anderson are three lawsuits filed by CCR, co-counsel EarthRights International (ERI), and private law firms on behalf of relatives of murdered Ogoni activists and other injured Ogonis who were fighting for human rights and environmental justice in their homeland.

Plaintiffs charged Royal Dutch Shell, Shell Nigeria, and Anderson with complicity in extrajudicial killing, crimes against humanity, torture, and other human rights claims. Plaintiffs in the case include the relatives of the executed activists Ken Saro-Wiwa, John Kpuinen, Saturday Doobee, Daniel Gbokoo, Felix Nuate, and Dr. Barinem Kiobel. Dr. Owens Wiwa, Ken Saro-Wiwa’s brother, and Michael Tema Vizor brought claims for the torture and detention that resulted in their exile from Nigeria. Further claims were brought by Karalolo Kogbara, who lost her arm, and on behalf of Uebari N-nah, who was killed in attacks on Ogoni civilians.
Anthony DiCaprio, an attorney who has worked on the case for many years, commented, “Throughout this very long process, I have been humbled by our clients’ unwavering courage and resilience. Their satisfaction with the result that we have been able to achieve is extremely gratifying.”
Human rights attorney Paul Hoffman, trial counsel in the Wiwa cases and partner at the law firm of Schonbrun, De Simone, Seplow, Harris and Hoffman, noted, “This settlement is only a first step towards the resolution of still outstanding issues between Shell and the Ogoni people.”

Oil operations in Nigeria have been chief among Shell’s assets for many decades. Critics charge that Shell’s aim for the lowest possible production cost, without regard for the resulting damage to the surrounding people and land, has wreaked havoc on local communities and the environment, including the still on-going practice of gas flaring. In the early 1990s, the Ogoni, led by Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People, began organized, non-violent protests against Shell’s practices. Shell grew increasingly concerned with the heightened international prominence of the Ogoni movement and made payments to security forces that they knew to be engaging in human rights violations against the local communities. The military government violently repressed the demonstrations, arrested Ogoni activists, and falsely accused nine Ogoni activists of murder and bribed witnesses to give fake testimony. The nine, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, were denied a fair trial and then hanged on November 10, 1995.

Said Agnieszka Fryszman, co-counsel with the law firm of Cohen Millstein Sellers & Toll, “The case has been pending for many years, and this settlement puts an end to what would likely have been yet another long round of appeals.”

Marco Simons, ERI Legal Director, stated, “The courts repeatedly rejected Shell’s efforts to dismiss this case, setting important legal precedents for the continued prosecution of corporations in breach of international law. This reinforces the plaintiffs’ demands that corporations such as Shell safeguard human rights and the environment.”

For complete documentation of the legal briefs and further background information, click here or visit www.ccrjustice.org, www.earthrights.org, and www.sdshh.com.

Share on Facebook

Han Shan, Coordinator for the Shell Guilty Campaign Speculates as to why the Wiwa v Shell trial was delayed and how we can continue to support the Ogoni plaintiffs

June 3, 2009

By Han Shan, ShellGuilty

Shell Protest in San Francisco on May 19, organized by JINN in the lead up to the Wiwa v Shell trial

Today, there was another delay in the Wiwa v. Shell trial, causing teeth-gnashing by journalists who have dedicated resources to cover the trial, hand-wringing by Ogoni people and human rights & environmental justice supporters worldwide, and head-scratching by nearly everyone else following along.

The trial had been set to begin with jury selection last Wednesday, May 27th, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. Last Tuesday, there was an 11th-hour postponement with no new trial date set. However, the court set a pre-trial conference with the two opposing counsel for Monday, June 1st. Late last Friday, the court announced that the Monday conference would be pushed back to Wednesday, June 3rd at 2pm. And today, that conference was canceled.

Presiding Judge Kimba Wood’s order says that the “trial remains adjourned sine die” which, with its poetic-sounding legal Latin, means that the trial is postponed indefinitely.

Does that mean it’s over, finished, done?!

No. But we really don’t know exactly what it means.

It could mean another court order is right around the corner that will set another pre-trial conference, or even set a date for jury selection – and the trial – to begin.

Or, as has been the subject of much speculation, the next thing we hear about may be an out-of-court settlement.

That would certainly cause more hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing but it would also make sense. Certainly, Shell doesn’t want this case to go to trial. They never did, and they filed motion after unsuccessful motion to try to keep it from happening. After losing the legal battle thus far, it’s easy to imagine that Shell would do anything it could – offering many millions of dollars of restitution to the plaintiffs comes to mind – to keep the trial date from ever coming.

And while many of us want to see Shell face the music for the crimes it has committed in Ogoni, we should also recognize that there are good reasons that the plaintiffs might want to settle and be done with this long legal struggle. I won’t enumerate them here, but I’ve reviewed the myriad reasons in my head and I would suggest that you do it yourself, if like me, your first thought on the idea of a settlement is that it’s some sort of terrible betrayal of everything the Ogoni people have fought for.

It’s not. And if there’s a settlement, we should be ready to support the plaintiffs as they declare victory, and work to keep the heat on Shell to end the crimes it continues to commit in communities cursed by the oil beneath their lands.

If Shell settles, they’ll try to spin it as if they were victims of a spurious extortion campaign by a bunch of trial lawyers using poor Nigerians as pawns (just watch). But if Shell – with its vastly superior resources – decides to settle, it will be because they realized that the evidence against them was overwhelming, and they made a deal that would allow them to pretend they’re innocent, and, well, play the victim.

Shell is victim only to hubris and to the self-destructive belief that it will forever get away with making human rights abuses and environmental devastation part of its business as usual.

Like many others, I am eager to see a trial. As determined as I am to support the plaintiffs who have known so much suffering and struggle, it would be hard to conceal my disappointment at news of a settlement. So I’m going to focus on the much more exciting possibility… that the trial has been delayed in order to broaden the case.

Okay, I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know if ‘broaden the case’ really describes what I mean. But today, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals added a very interesting wrinkle to the case that could explain the delay.

From a press release from the Center for Constitutional Rights, co-counsel on the lawsuit against Shell:

Today, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the District Court decision dismissing the Wiwa v. Shell plaintiffs’ claims against Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, Ltd. (Shell Nigeria). The District Court had dismissed the case against Shell Nigeria on March 4, 2008, finding it did not have jurisdiction over the company because the plaintiffs had failed to establish that Shell Nigeria was doing sufficient business in the United States to justify trying them in U.S. courts. The effect of the appellate court decision is to permit the plaintiffs to seek further information to establish Shell Nigeria’s connections to the United States.

When the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit against Shell, they charged Royal Dutch Shell, Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (Shell Nigeria), and Brian Anderson, head of Shell Nigeria when the abuses at issue took place. The District Court dismissed the charges against Shell Nigeria (allowing the other cases against Royal Dutch Shell and Mr. Anderson to go forward). Under the Alien Tort Statute, a company has to have a certain level of interest in the United States to come under the federal court’s jurisdiction. The District Court said that Shell Nigeria didn’t. But the plaintiffs argued on appeal that they should be granted the opportunity to do more discovery to determine whether or not this is actually the case. And according to the decision by the Circuit Court today, the plaintiffs prevailed.

Now the issue is kicked back to the District Court. And here’s where it gets really interesting.

It’s possible that Chief Judge Kimba Wood – aware that a decision was coming from the Circuit Court on this key issue – delayed the trial in order to make time to consider whether Shell Nigeria should be a defendant.

Of course, all the parties remain tight-lipped, so I really have no way of knowing. And I speculate partly for my own sanity.

So we all wait on pins and needles to hear what’s next - whether news of a settlement or the opening of this landmark trial or the confirmation of a formal delay to consider whether Shell Nigeria will join its parent company in the dock. Any which way it turns out, the Ogoni people have already put Shell on trial and found them guilty. And they’ve been witness to Shell’s crimes in ways that I hope and pray no-one else will again.

Share on Facebook

Proxies representing Nigeria, Ecuador, the Philippines, Burma, Iraq, Richmond and Kazakhstan return from speaking to Chevron's Shareholders - AP Photo/Paul Sakuma

JINN is a member of the diverse coalition of organizations and individuals  who wrote and released The True Cost of Chevron: An Alternative Annual Report on May 26  in time for Chevron’s shareholder meeting on May 27.  Several members of the coalition presented the report to shareholders, the board of directors and Chevron’s CEO David O’ Reilly inside the shareholder meeting.  O’ Reilly responded by saying the report belonged in the trash can and that he was personally insulted by the statements made by the proxies who represented Chevron affected communities around the world.  Read the Full Press Release from the Coalition

Our ally from the Niger Delta, human rights activist, Tunde Okorodudu was able to speak inside the shareholder meeting. He said:  “David O’ Reilly showed nothing but disrespect to all those who traveled from around the world to address the shareholder meeting, Chevron has done nothing but enable the culture of violence that now permeates my region.”

A subvertisement ad campaign, designed by Underground Ads accompanied the release of the report.

"Chevron refuses to clean up its mess in Nigeria." Ads designed by Underground Ads

Below is the announcement for the report and website with full information. Read the report and spread the word!  TrueCostofChevron.com

The True Cost of Chevron An Alternative Annual Report May 2009
Amazon Watch · CorpWatch · Crude Accountability · Environmental Rights Action EarthRights International · Filipino-American Coalition for Environmental Solidarity · Global Exchange Justice in Nigeria Now · Mpalabanda · Rainforest Action Network · Richmond Progressive Alliance Trustees for Alaska · US Labor Against the War · West County Toxics Coalition
Think you know Chevron? Think again.Chevron’s 2008 annual report is a glossy celebration of the company’s most profitable year in its history. What Chevron’s annual report does not tell its shareholders is the true cost paid for those financial returns, or the global movement gaining voice and strength against Chevron’s abuses. Thus, we, the communities and our allies who bear the consequences of Chevron’s oil and natural gas production, refineries, depots, pipelines, exploration, offshore drilling rigs, coal fields, chemical plants, political control, consumer abuse, false promises, and much more, have prepared an Alternative Annual Report for Chevron. The True Cost of Chevron: An Alternative Annual Report is a one-stop-shop for activists, policy makers, journalists, investors, analysts, and communities in struggle.It is the most comprehensive exposé of Chevron’s operations – and the communities in struggle against them – ever compiled. It includes reports from Alaska, California, Colorado, Florida, the Gulf Coast, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Utah, Washington, D.C, and Wyoming; internationally across Angola, Burma, Canada, Chad, Cameroon, Ecuador, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, and the Philippines. Antonia Juhasz is the lead author and editor of the report, which includes the writings of sixteen additional authors from across the U.S. and around the world and the contributions of dozens of organizations. The 44-page report is available to download at TrueCostofChevron.com – a visually stunning website using our ChevWrong “Inhumane Energy” ads that reveal the hypocrisy of Chevron’s human energy ad campaign. The report and the ads can be downloaded for free from the website, which also provides links to the organizations involved in the True Cost of Chevron campaign and more. Photo LEFT: Fire burning at Chevron Pascagoula, MS refinery, photograph by Christy Pritchett ran August 17, 2007. Courtesy of the Press-Register 2007 © All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Share on Facebook

Last week, the historic trial against Shell oil filed by the family of Ken Saro-Wiwa and others was delayed by one more week. According to the article by the AFP, the Judge Kimba Wood gave no explanation for the delay:

NEW YORK (AFP) — A pre-trial conference scheduled in the potentially landmark lawsuit brought by Nigerian plaintiffs against oil giant Royal Dutch Shell has been delayed until Wednesday, court papers show. Read Full Article

Ogoni Activist Suanu Bere speaks at San Francisco Shell protest. credit: Jan Sturmann

However, protests and rallies that began on May 19 for Shell’s shareholder meeting in the Hague and in London continued last week to call on Shell to end gas flaring in the Niger Delta - a demand that Wiwa and the Ogoni’s were asking for over 15 years ago and people of the Delta are still asking today.

JINN led the Bay Area protest with a large banner that read:  “Shell:  Stop Gas Flaring in Nigeria” and signs that read:  “Remember Ken Saro-Wiwa  and Shell:  Stop  Toxic Flares in Nigeria”

San Francisco activists hold Shell protest on May 19 - the day of Shell's shareholder meeting. credit: Jan Sturmann

Bere Suanu, an Ogoni from Nigeria spoke about how the Nigerian military tortured him at a time when Shell was paying the Nigerian military to quell protests in Ogoniland.

Then, on May 26 - the day the trail was set to begin - activists in South Africa led by groundWork held a solidarity rally to bring attention to the trial in New York and Shell’s dirty operations in Durban, South Africa

Activists protesting in South Africa - Shell's Hell

According to the Shell Guilty campaign other protests took place around the globe including:

In Nigeria, a rally, a candlelit vigil at the graveside of Ken Saro-Wiwa, and a mock trial were held at Bane, in Saro-Wiwa’s community. The events ran into controversy after Rivers State Police arrested a number of women activists in an attempt to prevent them from attending demonstrations. Protestors demanded their release, and eventually forced the police to release the detainees and respect their right to protest.

A noon rally took place in New York at Foley Square in Manhattan, near the federal courthouse where the trial had been scheduled to open today. A hundred supporters came out ahead of the trial, unfurling a banner that read, ‘JUSTICE FOR THE OGONI’. Inspiring speakers stressed that Shell cannot escape justice for their role in human rights abuses in the 1990s, and put pressure on Shell to end the ongoing environmental and social devastation in Nigeria’s Niger Delta region. A group of Ogoni activists closed the event by singing the Ogoni solidarity anthem.  Go to ShellGuilty.com for more information.

The trial is expected to commence no earlier than June 2nd.

Share on Facebook

Last Month, the Nigerian military began an offensive attack in the Niger Delta under the guise of rooting out militants associated with the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND). However, it’s clear that those who have suffered have been countless innocent villagers. Now the military has expanded their attacks to other states in the Delta.  Late last week, Environmental Rights Action issued a report of eye-witness accounts from the violence.

Read the Full Report

“Most of the students like me who tried to escape during the deadly incident are dead.  Some in the streets, forests …they were killed by the bombs. I lost my mother and six of my brothers in the incidence. Two of my three sisters are still trapped in the forest. The place is too dangerous for them to come out now. They can’t cross with boat and they can’t risk swimming. The JTF (Joint Task Force) people  have blocked the waterways. One of my sisters has been missing.
Nobody seems to know her whereabouts. The military people were using their helicopter chopper to destroy everything we have ever had. I saw war with my naked eyes. I saw my mum’s dead body. I saw my brothers lying helpless on the ground (here she started sobbing). Everyone was running without direction. It is a bitter experience. They are wicked people. They are heartless. I don’t have any family member as militants. We used to survive with fishing. It was through fishing business that my mum pays our school fees. Why will the FG [federal government]  send military men to kill us, to destroy our community? We don’t have anywhere else to go now. No home, no place to go…”

-. - Miss Peres Popo, 21, ,21 from, from Okporoza .

The report details what Environmental Rights Action is calling for in response to the military violence:

ERA demands:

• The Federal Government  should withdraw Joint Task Force (JTF) operatives from Gbaramatu Kingdom and the entire Niger Delta region.
• Federal Government should engage in genuine dialogue with the peoples of the Niger Delta as gun duels will not resolve the deep political issues
• Adequate provision of medical treatment and relief materials to all displaced persons
• Grant immediate access to NGO’s and other observers to Gbaramatu Kingdom
• Compensation for all affected persons in the attacks.
• Reconstruction of all bombed buildings and communities

Read full Report

Share on Facebook