Nigerians seek $1 billion from Shell for oil spills

By Mira Oberman | AFP – Thu, Oct 20, 2011

Re-posted from AFP

A Nigerian tribal king filed a lawsuit in a US court seeking $1 billion from Royal Dutch Shell to compensate for decades of pollution that sickened his people and damaged their lands, his lawyer said.

The suit was filed a day after the US Supreme Court said it will consider a lawsuit accusing Shell of human rights abuses in Nigeria in a landmark case that could make companies liable for torture or genocide committed overseas.

That case will assess the potential liability of corporations — including multinationals with a US presence — under the Alien Tort Statute, a US law dating back to 1789 that scholars say was meant to assure foreign governments that the United States would help prevent breaches of international law.

The latest case alleges that Shell’s Nigerian operations are “well below internationally recognized standards to prevent and control pipeline oil spills” because the Anglo-Dutch company “has not employed the best available technology and practices that they use elsewhere in the world.”

It cited a recent United Nations report that found that contamination was widespread in the Nigerian Delta after 50 years of oil extraction left groundwater badly contaminated and the soil soaked with hydrocarbons to depths of five meters.

The suit was brought on behalf of the people of Ogale in the Eleme local government area, where the UN team found the most serious groundwater contamination and people drinking water laced with cancer-causing benzene at 900 times World Health Organization guidelines.

Scientists found an eight centimeter layer of refined oil floating on the groundwater that served the wells. The oil was linked to a spill that had occurred six years earlier and was not properly cleaned up.

Full article

photo credit: © Kadir van Lohuizen/NOOR

From the website of Amnesty International: http://blog.amnestyusa.org/business/shell-accused-over-misleading-figures-on-nigeria-oil-spills/

17 October 2011
Re-posted from AFP

WASHINGTON — The US Supreme Court said Monday it will consider a lawsuit accusing Royal Dutch Shell of human rights abuses, a case that could make companies liable for torture or genocide committed overseas.

The plaintiffs — relatives of seven Nigerians killed by the country’s former military regime — sued the Anglo-Dutch energy giant and other firms for apparently enlisting the government to suppress resistance to oil exploration in the Niger Delta in the 1990s.

The case will assess the potential liability of corporations — including multinationals with a US presence — under the Alien Tort Statute, a US law dating back to 1789 which scholars say was meant to assure foreign governments that the United States would help prevent breaches of international law.

The 12 Nigerian plaintiffs charge Shell with “complicity in human rights violations committed against them in the Ogoni region of the Niger Delta in Nigeria between 1992 and 1995,” according to their complaint put before the court.

“These violations included torture, extra-judicial executions and crimes against humanity.”

It said Shell “aided and abetted the Nigerian government in committing human rights abuses,” and added: “For the victims of human rights violations such cases often provide the only opportunity to obtain any remedy for their suffering.”

Full article

image credit: Sweet Crude

Read the Reuters piece on the same subject

Nigeria: U.S. Court Declines to Hear Suit Against Shell, Chika Amanze-Nwachuku, This Day, AllAfrica Global Media, 8 February 2011

A United States Appeal Court on Friday refused to entertain a lawsuit that accused Royal Dutch Shell Plc of helping Nigerian authorities violently to suppress protests against oil exploration in the 1990s.

Specifically, the plaintiffs, families of seven Ogoni indigenes who were executed by the regime of the late General Sani Abacha, had accused the oil giant of violations related to the 1995 hangings of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other protesters by Nigeria’s then-military government.

The Ogoni Nine

In the case – Kiobel et al v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 06-4800 and 06-4876, the plaintiffs had sought their claims from the oil giant under a 1789 U.S. law known as the Alien Tort Statute.

The Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) was adopted in 1789 as part of the original Judiciary Act. It gave the federal courts jurisdiction to hear tort claims brought by foreigners who allege a violation of international law or a treaty to which the United States is a party. For almost two centuries, the statute was relatively dormant, supporting jurisdiction in only a handful of cases. However, it was later invoked in several cases involving torture, disappearances, or killings committed by non-Americans in foreign countries.

In a divided vote that prompted a bitter debate among some of its judges, the US appellate court affirmed a September ruling, which held that companies cannot be liable in U.S. courts for violations of international human rights law.

Reuters reported that the full 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York declined to hear the case by a 5-5 vote and instead left intact the original 2-1 panel ruling from September. Separately, the judges in that panel voted 2-1 not to rehear the case, the report said, added that the Friday ruling may not be the end of the lawsuit.

“The 2nd Circuit is alone among federal circuit courts in concluding that corporations cannot be responsible under U.S. law for human rights violations, ” the newswire quoted an international law professor at George Washington University, Ralph Steinhardt as saying. “This clears the way for the plaintiffs to seek review at the Supreme Court,” he added. The report added that a lawyer who has represented the families, Paul Hoffman, and Shell, did not immediately return requests for comment.

Shell had since denied allegations it is involved in human rights abuses.The 2nd Circuit ruling, the report said, applies in New York, Connecticut and Vermont. The Alien Tort Statute had underpinned other human rights cases. Reuters reported that in one, mining company Rio Tinto Plc was accused of forcing workers in Papua New Guinea to live in “slave like” conditions, and pushing the government to exact retribution after a mine was sabotaged.

The report cited another case where plaintiffs sought to hold Ford Motor Co. General Motors Co. and International Business Machines Corp liable for helping South African authorities when apartheid was in force more than two decades ago.

Friday’s split ruling showed major differences in the judges’ thinking. Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, part of the September panel that ruled for Shell, wrote that the original ruling “has no great practical effect except for the considerable benefit of avoiding abuse of the courts to extort settlements.”

He chided what he called fears by dissenting Judge Pierre Leval that “slavers and pirates will now rush into corporate transactions,” resulting in “absolution to moral monsters. For the record: even moral monsters are humans, and I would happily see them hanged.” Leval countered that Jacobs’ opinion evinces an “intense, multi-faceted policy agenda” underlying an effort “to exempt corporations from the law of nations.”

The report noted that other judges who favored a rehearing by the entire court said the case presented “a significant issue,” and that September’s ruling conflicted with a 2008 ruling from the 11th Circuit appeals court, which sits in Atlanta.

See another article on this story:  Shell not liable for rights violations, UPI, published: Feb. 8, 2011 at 9:44 AM

The oil industry is more powerful today than at any other time in history save the early 20th century. Thanks to last year’s record run-up in oil prices, seven of the world’s most valuable corporations are now oil companies. Yet just one of those companies has become the focus of intense consumer ire.

Perhaps the largest coordinated activist campaign in history is being launched against the San Ramon-based Chevron Corporation. Foregoing boycotts and other traditional market campaign techniques, non-governmental organizations are creatively communicating the business case for why Chevron should change its ways, focusing on mobilizing company shareholders and consumers to compel the company to come clean and pursue social and environmental leadership.

This unprecedented campaign to make Chevron the poster child of corporate irresponsibility has already persuaded pension funds in California, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania to consider selling a total of $12 billion in Chevron shares on the grounds that the firm is mismanaging its operations around the globe. The prime focus of this ongoing anti-Chevron effort has been the company’s annual shareholder meetings, but protests at the Richmond refinery and a series of movie and PR stunts have been also been effective tactics….Read full article

Nigeria Section of article:

Nigeria may represent Chevron’s toughest challenge yet. What happens in Nigeria could have major impacts on future operations in a continent destined to become the top oil producer for the United States in the coming decades. In fact, Africa already supplies the United States with more oil than the Middle East.

Nigeria’s population of 150 million people makes it the most populous country in Africa. The country is torn by cultural and religious strife. The north is predominately Muslim and has traditionally dominated governing structures. The south is comprised primarily of poor Christian populations living near the oil reserves in the Niger Delta, a former fishing community. These southerners traditionally have not had much voice in governmental affairs.

Oil operations have decimated fish populations, interrupting the traditional way of life in the Niger Delta. Many villagers write long detailed letters to Chevron about the impacts oil operations have on their lives — but they never get a response. Chevron employees live in barricades so they have no interaction with the local population. As of late, villagers have become armed and steal oil — locals call it “bunkering” — and Chevron has begun to bribe armed rebels to allow oil to get to market, further entrenching a culture of corruption in Nigeria.

“Oil is so lucrative that a web of mysterious relationships between oil companies, the government, militants, and communities has evolved,” said Laura Livoti, founder of Justice in Nigeria Now, and a longtime activist and radio reporter. Without her group, the issues surrounding oil and this troubled African country would never make the news and become part of the ongoing dialogue about how to reform Chevron and other oil companies operating there. The media tends to ignore what happens in this part of the world, but Livoti’s group, with a staff of two, is determined to change that.

Earlier this year, for example, 20,000 villagers were displaced during a government-backed crackdown funded by Chevron. “No humanitarian aid was allowed, no journalists, no human-rights observers. Military rogues blew up facilities, which shut down the oil industry. Things got so bad, Chevron pulled out all non-essential employees,” Livoti said.

It was this development that prompted the government to offer an amnesty program for militants this past May. While many balked, a large number have come forward to accept amnesty, except the militants most committed to political ideals as well as genuine solutions to local poverty.

The militants and ongoing corruption in Nigeria complicates things. “When the Nigerians were peaceful protestors, it was a lot easier to gain sympathy,” acknowledged Livoti. “Now that an armed resistance as risen up in Nigeria, attracting sympathy — and financial support — is much more difficult,” she said.  Read Full article

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.

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.