Shell Must Face Trial for Toxic Legacy in Niger Delta

Matthew Renshaw

CIVICUS spoke with Matthew Renshaw, a partner at a UK law firm representing Nigerian communities taking legal action against Shell over environmental damage caused by its operations in the Niger Delta.

Two Nigerian communities, Bille and Ogale, are suing Shell in the UK over decades of oil spills that have devastated their land, water, and way of life. The High Court has ruled that Shell and its former Nigerian subsidiary can be held liable for ongoing environmental damage, even if caused by oil theft or sabotage, and regardless of how long ago the spills occurred. This builds on a 2021 Supreme Court ruling allowing UK-based parent companies to be sued for harm abroad. A full trial is set for March 2027.

How has oil pollution affected these communities?

The three Niger Delta communities represented have suffered in different ways.

The Bodo community endured two major oil spills in 2008, releasing over half a million barrels of oil—the largest mangrove habitat devastation in history. Fishing is no longer possible, and water is unsafe even for swimming. Despite filing a case in the UK in 2011, a proper cleanup has yet to be delivered.

Bille and Ogale communities filed their case in 2015. Ogale, reliant on farming and fishing, has suffered nearly 100 oil spills since the 1980s. In 2011, the UN declared a public health emergency due to contaminated drinking water, but little has changed. Temporary safe water provisions by Shell were discontinued years ago, and residents now use visibly polluted water.

The Bille community, living on riverine islands, also depends on fishing. A major pipeline runs through the area. Between 2011 and 2013, multiple oil spills destroyed mangrove forests, forcing some residents to abandon their homes.

Why sue in the UK instead of Nigeria?

Clients chose the UK because Shell’s parent company is based there and has profited from operations in Nigeria. They also believe justice is unattainable in Nigeria due to a slow legal system and prohibitively expensive litigation. UK mechanisms make such cases feasible, and a fairer hearing is expected.

This strategy has produced results: Shell engaged international experts for cleanup efforts in Bodo after UK proceedings began. In 2021, the UK Supreme Court ruled the case could proceed in London, despite Shell's objection.

How is Shell defending itself?

Shell argues that most pollution results from oil theft, or 'bunkering', claiming its operations are clean. However, many spills are due to ageing, poorly maintained infrastructure.

Even if theft is a factor, Shell failed to take reasonable precautions. Unlike in other countries, pipelines in Nigeria are not buried or fitted with proper monitoring systems.

What did the recent court ruling say?

The High Court ruled that Shell could be held liable if it failed to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm, including pollution from oil theft. The court also rejected Shell’s claim that it couldn’t be held responsible for spills older than five years, as long as the damage remains.

The decision is significant for the Ogale case, where pollution dates back to the 1980s, and it could open the door for other communities with similar claims from as far back as the 1970s.

What do the communities hope to achieve?

The plaintiffs seek three outcomes from the 2027 trial:

Comprehensive environmental cleanup.

Access to clean drinking water.

Compensation for lost livelihoods and property damage.

A key concern is Shell’s recent divestment from its onshore Nigerian operations. The company has sold its assets and may try to walk away from its legacy of pollution. While the current plaintiffs have secured court proceedings, many others have not.

The legal team aims to ensure Shell and similar companies cannot abandon polluted sites without accountability. A successful outcome could establish a legal precedent affirming corporate responsibility for long-term environmental damage.

Though this case won’t set binding international precedent, it could strongly influence how similar claims are handled in other countries, particularly in common law jurisdictions.