Are you aware that some of the world’s political leaders, global business leaders, and even religious leaders are not comfortable with the second coming of the 47th President of the United States of America- Donald Trump?

This is understandable. After all,  it’s been said that heaven has favourites.

Immediately Donald Trump came back to the White House on 20 January 25, he hit the ground running by starting to deliver his campaign promises.

During his inauguration, he boldly re-affirmed his “Make America Great Again (MAGA)” agenda with sweeping statements on how he intends to use Tax and Tariff on foreign countries and foreign businesses to better the lot of Americans.

Here’s the highlight of his thundering that sends fears running through the spines of people around the globe:

▪︎Trump, who confidently said: ” I was saved by God to make America great again, declared: Today, I will sign a series of historic executive orders.  With these actions, we will begin the complete restoration of America and the revolution of common sense.  It’s all about common sense. 

 ▪︎First, I will declare a national emergency at our southern border.  All illegal entry will immediately be halted, and we will begin the process of returning millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came.  We will reinstate my Remain in Mexico policy. 

I will end the practice of catch and release.  And I will send troops to the southern border to repel the disastrous invasion of our country. 

▪︎ Under the orders I signed today, we will also be designating the cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.  And by invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, I will direct our government to use the full and immense power of federal and state law enforcement to eliminate the presence of all foreign gangs and criminal networks bringing devastating crime to U.S. soil, including our cities and inner cities.   

▪︎As commander in chief, I have no higher responsibility than to defend our country from threats and invasions, and that is exactly what I am going to do.  We will do it at a level that nobody has ever seen before. 

▪︎Next, I will direct all members of my cabinet to marshal the vast powers at their disposal to defeat what was record inflation and rapidly bring down costs and prices. 

The inflation crisis was caused by massive overspending and escalating energy prices, and that is why today I will also declare a national energy emergency.  We will drill, baby, drill. 

▪︎America will be a manufacturing nation once again, and we have something that no other manufacturing nation will ever have — the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on earth — and we are going to use it. 

We’ll use it.  We will bring prices down, fill our strategic reserves up again right to the top, and export American energy all over the world. We will be a rich nation again, and it is that liquid gold under our feet that will help to do it.  

▪︎With my actions today, we will end the Green New Deal, and we will revoke the electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto industry and keeping my sacred pledge to our great American autoworkers. 

In other words, you’ll be able to buy the car of your choice. We will build automobiles in America again at a rate that nobody could have dreamt possible just a few years ago.  And thank you to the autoworkers of our nation for your inspiring vote of confidence.  We did tremendously with their vote.  ▪︎I will immediately begin the overhaul of our trade system to protect American workers and families.  Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens. For this purpose, we are establishing the External Revenue Service to collect all tariffs, duties, and revenues. 

It will be massive amounts of money pouring into our Treasury, coming from foreign sources. 

 The American dream will soon be back and thriving like never before.  

▪︎To restore competence and effectiveness to our federal government, my administration will establish the brand-new Department of Government Efficiency.  

After years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression, I also will sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.  Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents — something I know something about.  We will not allow that to happen.  It will not happen again. 

▪︎Under my leadership, we will restore fair, equal, and impartial justice under the constitutional rule of law.   And we are going to bring law and order back to our cities.

  This week, I will also end the government policy of trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life. We will forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based.  

▪︎As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female.

Introduction

The environmental crisis in Nigeria’s Niger Delta region represents one of the most severe cases of industrial pollution in human history.

Since oil’s discovery in 1958, this once-pristine delta ecosystem has endured systematic degradation through oil spills, with conservative estimates indicating between 9 and 13 million barrels of oil released into the environment.

Between 2020-2021 alone, the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency documented 822 separate oil spills, releasing 28,003 barrels of oil into sensitive ecosystems.

Nigerian courts have developed an innovative constitutional framework for environmental protection in response to this ongoing environmental catastrophe.

This jurisprudential evolution marks a significant departure from traditional common law and statutory remedies, establishing environmental rights as fundamental human rights deserving constitutional protection.

Changing environmental rights from mere policy objectives to enforceable constitutional rights represents one of the most significant developments in Nigerian constitutional law.

Constitutional Framework for Environmental Protection

The Nigerian Constitution establishes environmental protection through several interconnected provisions.

Section 20 explicitly mandates that “the State shall protect and improve the environment and safeguard the water, air and land, forest and wildlife of Nigeria.”

Whilst placed within Chapter 2 of the Constitution, this provision has gained increasing significance through judicial interpretation and legislative action.

Traditionally, Section 20’s placement within the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy rendered it non-justiciable under Section 6(6)(c) of the Constitution.

However, Nigerian courts have developed two significant exceptions to this principle of non-justiciability.

The first exception arises when the National Assembly exercises its powers under Items 60(a) and 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List by enacting laws to “promote and enforce the observance of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles” contained in Chapter 2 of the Constitution.

When the National Assembly enacts legislation relating to Chapter 2 provisions pursuant to Items 60(a) and 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List, the courts have consistently held these provisions to be enforceable.

The second exception occurs when Chapter 2 provisions are interpreted in conjunction with justiciable provisions of the Constitution, particularly the fundamental rights outlined in Chapter 4. In such circumstances, the provisions of Chapter 2 become enforceable.

Beyond Section 20, the Constitution provides additional environmental protection through fundamental rights provisions.

Section 33(1)’s right to life and Section 34(1)’s right to human dignity have been interpreted to encompass environmental protection.

These provisions within the justiciable Chapter 4 provide direct avenues for environmental rights enforcement.

African Charter Framework

The African Charter operates through a unique dual mechanism in Nigeria, functioning as an international treaty and as domestic legislation through the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.

The Supreme Court in Abacha v Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228 established that whilst the African Charter is subject to the Constitution, it holds “a greater vigour and strength” than ordinary domestic statutes.

The Charter provides several environmental rights that complement constitutional protections.

Article 4 guarantees the right to life, which the African Commission has interpreted to include protection from life-threatening environmental conditions.

Article 16 establishes the right to the best attainable state of physical and mental health, whilst Article 22 recognises the right to economic, social, and cultural development.

Most directly, Article 24 guarantees the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to development.

These Charter rights gain additional force through the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009, which mandate expansive interpretation of both constitutional and Charter rights.

The Rules specifically provide for enforcement of Charter rights alongside constitutional rights, creating a comprehensive framework for environmental protection.

Early Jurisprudential Developments Initial judicial approaches to environmental rights claims adopted a restrictive interpretation of constitutional provisions.

Courts generally treated environmental matters as policy issues rather than justiciable rights, limiting remedies to traditional common law and statutory frameworks.

This approach reflected a narrow reading of Section 6(6)(c), treating Chapter 2 provisions, including Section 20’s environmental mandate, as purely aspirational. However, over time, this restrictive approach began to shift.

The Supreme Court established the transition from non-justiciability to enforceability of Chapter 2 rights in the landmark decision of Olafisoye v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2005) 51 WRN 6. Olafisoye was charged with corrupt practices under Section 15(5) of Chapter 2 of the Constitution, which addresses the fundamental objective of government to abolish corruption.

Olafisoye challenged his indictment on the grounds that Section 15(5) of Chapter 2 of the Constitution was non-justiciable.

After losing at both the High Court and Court of Appeal, he made a final appeal to the Supreme Court.

Justice Niki Tobi, delivering the lead judgement, first reviewed the history of Chapter 2 rights and referenced the “raison d’être” of the Constitution’s drafters to explain the chapter’s rationale.

The Supreme Court Justice stated that Chapter 2 rights were established in the Constitution as aspirational goals with future potential for enforceability.

He explained that this was why Section 6(6)(c) provided exceptions to the non-justiciability of Chapter 2.

Justice Niki Tobi held that whilst corrupt practices established by Section 15(5) are not justiciable at face value, these provisions may become justiciable when read in conjunction with Item 60(a) of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, which empowers the National Assembly “to promote and enforce the observance of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles contained in this Constitution.”

He stated: “The non-justiciability of Section 6(6)(c) of the Constitution is neither total nor sacrosanct as the subsection provides a leeway by the use of the words ‘except as otherwise provided by the Constitution.’

A community reading of Item 60(a) and Section 15(5) results in quite a different package, a package which no more leaves Chapter 2 a toothless dog which could only bark but cannot bite.

In my view, by the joint reading of the two provisions, Chapter 2 becomes clearly and obviously justiciable.”

The Supreme Court dismissed Olafisoye’s objection, with Justice Niki Tobi holding that the indictment fell within the exceptions permitting the National Assembly to legislate the enforcement of Chapter 2 rights.

The Olafisoye decision established the doctrine that whilst Chapter 2 (Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy) is generally non-justiciable, it is enforceable within the exceptions permitted by the Constitution.

The Gbemre Decision: A New Direction

The Federal High Court’s decision in Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Ltd & Ors (2005) AHRLR 151 marked a fundamental transformation in Nigerian environmental rights jurisprudence.

The case concerned gas flaring activities in the Niger Delta region, with communities alleging violations of both constitutional and Charter rights.

The Court’s groundbreaking decision recognised environmental rights as fundamental human rights for the first time in Nigerian judicial history.

In a seminal declaration, the Court held that “the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights to life and dignity of human person provided in Sections 33(1) and 34(1) of the Constitution… inevitably includes the right to clean poison-free, pollution-free and healthy environment.”

Significantly, the Court found that gas flaring activities violated these constitutional rights, establishing that industrial activities causing environmental harm could constitute fundamental rights violations.

The decision also bridged constitutional and Charter protections, demonstrating how these frameworks could work together to protect environmental rights.

COPW: Supreme Court Confirmation

The Supreme Court’s watershed decision in Centre for Oil Pollution Watch (COPW) v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 518 cemented the constitutional status of environmental rights.

The case arose from an oil pipeline explosion that contaminated waterways, destroyed aquatic life, and threatened community health and livelihoods.

The Supreme Court stated: “The present action concerns an oil pipeline that burst, allegedly spilling crude oil into waterways, polluting drinking sources and destroying aquatic life, plant life, and fauna, and also endangering the health and lives of the people of the community.

In this regard, Section 33 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 provides for the right to life.

Any act or omission which threatens the health of the people of the community also threatens their lives and is in breach of the guarantee of the right to life provided by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.”

The Court further stated: “Section 33 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the right to life whilst Section 20 of the Constitution provides that ‘the State shall protect and improve the environment and safeguard the water, air and land, forest and wildlife of the country.’

See also: Article 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which provides ‘All peoples shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development.’

These provisions show that the Constitution, the legislature and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Nigeria is a signatory, recognise the fundamental rights of the citizenry to a clean and healthy environment to sustain life.”

This judgement significantly expanded the scope of environmental rights within the context of oil pollution damage, particularly linking the right to life and the right to a clean environment.

Communities affected by environmental degradation now have standing to bring constitutional claims. Courts must consider environmental harm within the framework of fundamental rights violations.

Impact and Current State of the Law

The COPW decision effectively overruled more restrictive approaches to environmental rights, establishing several crucial principles.

First, it confirmed that environmental degradation can violate fundamental rights under both the Constitution and the African Charter.

Second, it established that environmental rights are directly enforceable through constitutional claims.

Third, it mandated a broad and purposive interpretation of environmental rights to ensure effective protection. Subsequent courts have consistently followed and built upon COPW’s constitutional framework.

Most notable are Mobil Producing (Nig) Unlimited v. Ajanaku & Anor (2021) LPELR-52566(CA) and Chief Isaac Obor – Ntito Torchi and Others v. Shell Development Company Limited and Others (Suit No. FHC/OW/CS/05/2020).

In the latter case, the most recent case, the court awarded unprecedented damages of Eight Hundred Billion Naira against Shell for environmental pollution – the largest such award in Nigerian history. This represents a decisive shift from the old constitutional orthodoxy that considered environmental rights non-justiciable to the current approach treating them as enforceable constitutional rights.

These developments have significant practical implications. Communities affected by environmental degradation now have standing to bring constitutional claims. Courts must consider environmental harm within the framework of fundamental rights violations.

The broad interpretative approach mandated by COPW and followed in subsequent cases provides flexibility in recognising various forms of environmental harm as rights violations.

These legal developments for multinational oil companies operating in Nigeria present substantial new risks and obligations.

The elevation of environmental rights to constitutional status means that oil companies now face potential liability not just under traditional environmental regulations, but also for fundamental rights violations.

This expanded liability framework has several key implications for multinationals:

First, the constitutional framework allows for significantly higher damages awards, as demonstrated by the Eight Hundred Billion Naira judgement against Shell.

Unlike statutory environmental fines, there are no preset limits on constitutional damages.

Second, the broader standing rules for constitutional claims mean that entire communities, not just directly affected individuals, can bring claims against oil companies.

Third, the constitutional nature of these rights means that companies cannot rely on mere compliance with environmental regulations as a complete defence – they must ensure their operations do not infringe on fundamental rights to life and a healthy environment.

Finally, the constitutional framework creates enhanced reputational risks for multinationals, as being found liable for human rights violations carries greater stigma than traditional environmental infractions.

▪︎Collins Okeke is an Associate Partner, Olisa Agbakoba Legal.

By Ichaburu Ochefa

Image credit: The Hoot

“Our refinery not 90% completed – BUA

The management of BUA Refinery and Petrochemicals has denied reports its refinery is 90 percent completed.” (Daily Trust)

“CBN Dismisses Forced Exit Claims, Says 1,000 Staff Exited Voluntary with Full Benefits” (Arise  News)

“FCCPC denies claims of halting investigations into Air Peace, other sectors”  (The Nation)

” Port Harcourt Refinery begins operation, says NNPC (Premium Times)

“NNPC Ltd Delivers on Refinery Revamp Promise: Warri Plant Resumes Operation with 125,000bpd Capacity in Warri, Delta State.” (Dec 30, Reuters)

Looking at the above headlines clips, what do they have in common?

Managements discredited news reports that emanated from the organizations. Either from the corporate affairs departments duly signed by the company’s image maker or a member of the board of directors of the company. 

Also, the information may have been gotten by the reporter or Editor, through an insider ( the CEO himself,  a director,  driver, cleaner, PRO, etc) in the company.

He hurries to write the story and breaks it as an  “exclusive or a scoop”,  on his media platform.

However,  to promote or project an organization’s image in a positive light to the government, the shareholders, and other stakeholders,  some company’s media departments have employed what we call “agitprop” or propaganda journalism, which is coloring falsehood, lies, and misinformation, to look like truth.

It is a powerful tool or weapon to move the crowd to believe what is fake is real and things like that.

Just to sway or pull the crowd to accept that viewpoint.

Advertisers use it often in the marketing of products and services.

Maybe you are familiar with clichés such as these:

“Use this cream and you will look glamorous.”

“Use this toothpaste and…”

“Everybody is drinking this water…” Propaganda journalism or messages are destructive.

It is like you lied to me before, how can I trust you again?

Again,  some news sources or makers even employ what is called synecdoche, a figure of speech in English -Literature.

Synecdoche means when you use a part to represent a whole, or a whole for the part.

Therefore, organizations and their image makers had better ensure that the information they are sending out for public consumption is crafted in such a manner that what is written is what is understood, and what is understood is what is meant

That’s what may have played out in the reportage of the  NNPCL refineries in Port Harcourt and the Warri Refinery and Petrochemicals. 

The NNPCL, in its press releases, made the public believe that they had started working, whereas it was a section of the refineries.

Media reports had it that in November and December 2024, respectively, the NNPCL announced the revamping of the refineries, even if partially, with Port Harcourt at 70 percent level functionality, while the Warri refinery is currently operating at 60 percent.

The announcements led to the government rejoicing, a well-done and for the good works to the NNPCL management,  and an encouragement by Mr President to the Corporation’s head to finish the Kaduna refinery and the New Port Harcourt Refinery,  too.

However,  the praises were soon cut shut, following the outpourings of doubts about the Workability of the refineries.

The doubters include oil, some people in the oil and gas industry, petroleum engineers, as well as Nigeria’s elder statesman, former President Olusegun Obasanjo.

SweetcrudeReports,  recently reported: ” Experts, stakeholders and inside sources at the Port Harcourt Refinery are faulting the recent Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, NNPC, claims on the return of the 60,000 barrels per day old Port Harcourt refinery to operations.

They described the claims as amounting to national deceit. Investigations at the refinery showed that the plant currently refines only 6,500 barrels of crude oil some days (not even daily), which can only load 10 trucks. Industry experts say this is insignificant when compared to the refinery’s 60,000 barrels per day refining capacity and its loading capacity of 180 to 200 trucks daily.

According to the experts, a refinery of 60,000 per day capacity that is processing only 6,500 barrels cannot be described as working. “As it stands now, it is only the CDU (Crude Distillation Unit) that refines just 6,500 barrels per day and produces nothing more than 10 trucks maximum per day that is working, ”Alex Ogedegbe, a chemical engineer, expert refiner and former Managing Director of the Port Harcourt Refinery and the Warri Refinery, told SweetcrudeReports.

He added: “It is not the full refinery that is functioning. No refiner can claim that with only one unit running, and for that, the Port Harcourt refinery has begun operations and thus issues fake figures to Nigerians.

President Olusegun Obasanjo also expressed reservations over the workability of the Port Harcourt and Warri refineries.

Obasanjo who spoke recently on a national television, likened the declaration by the NNPC that the crude oil refining facilities are now working to a farmer who lied about the volume of his crops during the planting season, insisting that the truth will always be revealed during the harvest season.

“So if anybody tells you now that they (the refineries ) are working, why are they not with Aliko (in the market)? And Aliko will make his refinery work. Not only make it work, he will make it deliver.

“Whether we announce our government refineries are working or not working, look, it is like they say in Yoruba adage, ‘the man who plants 100 heaps of yams and says he has planted 200 heaps, they say after he has harvested 100 heaps of yam, he will also harvest 100 heaps of lies,” he said in response to a question on the oil assets.

What is the point?

Therefore, organizations and their image makers had better ensure that the information they are sending out for public consumption is crafted in such a manner that what is written is what is understood, and what is understood is what is meant; otherwise,  the receivers will read different meaning or give a different interpretation to the information. 

In the words of Anuk Kumar, any news that does not contain facts and shades of opinion that allow readers to draw their own meaning is inadvertent propaganda.

▪︎Ichaburu Ochefa, a media professional and communicator, wrote this piece in Lagos.