Opinions

Environmental Rights as Constitutional Rights: Nigeria’s Legal Evolution, by Collins Okeke

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.

Published

4 months ago

January 17, 2025

OCHEFA

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 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.

Up Next

Trump: The Man Whom The World Fears and Why

Don't Miss

Propaganda Journalism: Are Image Makers To Blame or The Board ?

Click to comment

Opinions

Who Will Bell The Cat? By Emeka Monye

Whether we belong to one religious group, political party or ethnicity is inconsequential because the harsh economy is hitting hard on everyone.

Published

1 day ago

May 28, 2025

OhiBaba

The phrase “Who will bell the cat?” originates from a medieval fable about mice who decided to put a bell on a cat to warn them of its approach.

However, they realize that the difficult part is finding a volunteer to actually bell the cat.

The story is a classic fable that teaches a valuable lesson about courage, responsibility, and the challenges of implementing a good idea.

In modern usage, the phrase is often used metaphorically to ask who will take bold action or assume responsibility for a difficult or risky task.

In the story, a group of mice gather to discuss ways to protect themselves from a sly cat that has been terrorizing them.

One clever mouse suggests attaching a bell to the cat’s neck, so the mice can hear it coming and scurry to safety.

The plan seems brilliant, but when the mice are asked who will actually bell the cat, no one volunteers.

Here lies the challenge, everyone was scared of being the victim. The mice realize that it’s easy to propose a plan, but much harder to put it into action, especially when it involves risk.

This fable highlights the importance of considering the practicalities and potential consequences of a plan, as well as the need for courage and willingness to take action.

This is the reality we have found ourselves in modern day Nigeria.

Everyone is complaining, complaining and lamenting about the harsh economic and political disequilibrium, yet no one is bold enough or has summoned the gut to take charge and offer a real solution to the present socio-economic quagmire.

Every day on various social media, the ranting is hitting the high heavens, ceilings are being shattered and walls are being broken by people, mostly the common man, about the state of affairs in the country.

Unfortunately, and like the proverbial mice, no one seems to have summoned the courage to face the Intimidators of the large chunk of the people.

Many of those caught in this web of animal oppression have been divided along fault lines, including politics, tribe, ethnicity and worst of all, religion.

Whether we belong to one religious group, political party or ethnicity is inconsequential because the harsh economy is hitting hard on everyone.

Everyone is complaining, complaining and lamenting about the harsh economic and political disequilibrium, yet no one is bold enough or has summoned the gut to take charge and offer a real solution to the present socio-economic quagmire.

People are on a daily basis dropping dead, either by committing suicide or accidental, because they cannot afford the basic needs of life such as food.

While the political leaders have been fingered as the architect of this present economic circumstance, the reality existing among the followers who in this context can be likened to the mice, is that most of them have not been able to summon the courage to take action.

At best what we hear is false courage on social media, people hiding under pseudonyms to call on unsuspecting and naive Nigerians to go out and cause mayhem, yet these same faceless groups of people oftentimes turn around to betray the people’s trust.

And When groups or individuals in positions of power prioritize their own interests over the trust placed on them, it can lead to feelings of betrayal and disillusionment.

This phenomenon can be seen in various contexts, including politics, business, and social movements.

When leaders or representatives fail to uphold their responsibilities or act with integrity, it can erode trust and undermine the relationships between those in power and the people they serve.

To mitigate these risks, it’s essential to establish robust systems of accountability, transparency, and checks and balances.

This can help ensure that those in power act in the best interests of the people they serve and not make them live like the proverbial MICE seeking for a VOLUNTEER to bell the CAT

•Emeka Monye Is A Journalist And Works With ARISE NEWS

Opinions

Macron Got Slapped And the World Laughed, This is Why Men Don’t Report Abuse, By Halima Layeni

If the roles were reversed, if President Macron had slapped or pushed Brigitte Macron, there would be protests.

Published

3 days ago

May 27, 2025

OhiBaba

Earlier today, a clip surfaced online showing French President Emmanuel Macron being pushed on the cheek by his wife, Brigitte Macron.

What should have sparked outrage, concern, and deep conversations around domestic violence was instead reduced to meme fodder and crude jokes.

The reaction has been as swift as it has been disturbing: mockery, laughter, judgment, and the ever familiar chorus of

“That’s what he gets for marrying his teacher.”And just like that, a moment that should have highlighted a very real issue, domestic violence against men, was drowned in ridicule. No hashtags. No public outcry.

No feminist organizations stepping forward. No nonprofit issuing a statement. Just silence. Deafening silence.Abuse is abuse, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator or the victim.

If the roles were reversed, if President Macron had slapped or pushed Brigitte Macron, there would be protests.

There would be hashtags. There would be fire and fury from advocacy groups.

The world would come to a standstill demanding accountability and protection for women, and rightly so.

But when it is a man, a world leader no less, experiencing what can only be described as a moment of public humiliation and physical aggression, the same voices fall silent.

Why? Because society has normalized the idea that men are too strong to be victims.

That their pain is comical. That their abuse is somehow deserved. And so, they suffer not just in silence but in isolation and shame.

President Macron has long been the subject of public scrutiny because of his marriage.

This age gap, had the roles been reversed, would be celebrated as empowerment or love defying the odds. But for him, it is used as a weapon to justify abuse.

And now, when a moment of violence occurs, it is brushed off with a laugh, as if his choices have made him unworthy of dignity or protection.

This is the very heart of the crisis.

Men continue to die in silence because the world refuses to see them as victims. They are mocked when they cry out. They are told to “man up” when they break down.

They are dismissed when they seek help. This stigma is not only cruel; it is deadly. Because behind the jokes are real men, fathers, brothers, sons, husbands, who endure violence every day with no one to fight for them, no one to believe them, and no safe space to heal.

Domestic violence affects men in ways that are deeply traumatic but rarely acknowledged.

Male victims often experience depression, anxiety, post traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal ideation.

They are less likely to report abuse due to fear of not being believed or being seen as weak.

Many have nowhere to go. There are far fewer shelters for men, far fewer support systems, and almost no targeted campaigns offering help.

Men are suffering, and they are doing so alone.We need more men’s initiatives, more safe houses, more trained professionals who understand the psychological and emotional toll of abuse on men.

We need funding for shelters that serve male survivors, just as we fund shelters for women. These are not competing needs.

They are shared needs. Human needs.Mainstream media must rise above the culture of mockery and begin to treat violence against men as the serious issue it is.

This is not a laughing matter. When men are assaulted, their experiences should not become viral punchlines.

They should become urgent stories, stories that call us to confront our biases and open our eyes to the full scope of domestic abuse.

Governments also have a role to play. Policy must reflect the reality that domestic violence affects all genders.

This is not a laughing matter. When men are assaulted, their experiences should not become viral punchlines

Funding for prevention, shelters, legal aid, and trauma support should be inclusive.

It is unjust to pour millions into protecting women while completely overlooking the pain of men.

Protection should never be selective. Support should never be conditional.

If a government truly cares about the safety and mental health of its citizens, then male victims of abuse must be seen, heard, and supported with the same energy and investment.

President Macron’s case was domestic violence on full display, and it is not acceptable.

The world watched it happen. And the world laughed.

But one day, maybe not today, we must ask ourselves what kind of society we are building, one where men’s suffering is the punchline, or one where every victim matters.

It is time we stop treating abuse as a gendered issue and start treating it as a human one.

Because until we do, men will keep dying in silence, while the world keeps laughing.

•Halima Layeni Men’s Mental Health Advocate Executive Director Life After Abuse Foundation

halimalayeni@gmail.com

Opinions

Nigeria Must Prioritize Local Defense Contractors for National Security and Economic Growth

While Nigeria strives for self-reliance and national security, its defense procurement landscape remains heavily tilted in favour of foreign contractors.

Published

4 weeks ago

April 30, 2025

OhiBaba

BY BEM IBRAHIM GARBA

Despite the growing capacity among Indigenous defense firms, Nigeria continues to favor foreign contractors.

This pattern threatens long-term national security, economic independence, and local innovation.

While Nigeria strives for self-reliance and national security, its defense procurement landscape remains heavily tilted in favour of foreign contractors.

Despite significant strides in capacity development, manufacturing, design, and operational capability, Nigerian-owned defense companies face systemic bias and limited access to government contracts.

This preference for foreign contractors and solutions incurs costs: economically, strategically, and technologically.

If Nigeria is committed to developing a robust, sovereign, and exportable defense industry, it must start by prioritizing local contractors.

FOREIGN FIRMS STILL GET THE FIRST CALL

Today, many Nigerian companies have developed capacity.

They offer reliable, innovative, and scalable solutions, including the production of sensitive equipment/systems, tactical vehicles, protective gear, and training facilities.

Yet, when the time comes for procurement, tenders and negotiations disproportionately favour foreign companies and suppliers.

These foreign firms are not only awarded high-value contracts but are often given easier access to key decision-makers.

Local companies, by contrast, face endless social and political hurdles: excessive scrutiny, limited engagement from end-users, and a lack of pilot opportunities to prove their systems in the field.

THE COST OF MARGINALISING OUR LOCAL INDUSTRY

The consequences of this procurement imbalance are far-reaching:

Capital Flight:

Nigeria loses billions annually by supporting foreign companies instead of helping Nigerian-owned businesses.

This practice enriches foreigners economically and denies local firms the opportunity to collaborate with international partners, which could enhance technology transfer, experience, and knowledge-sharing.

Job Loss:

Neglecting local defense companies negatively impacts the Nigerian economy and leads to job losses.

Manufacturing opportunities that could employ thousands of Nigerian youth are instead given to foreign factories, resulting in the creation and maintenance of valuable jobs overseas that could have been retained in Nigeria.

Technology Dependence:

Relying on foreign suppliers undermines Nigeria’s ability to develop, control, or modify critical defence platforms.

When Nigerian companies receive support, they are encouraged to strengthen partnerships with foreign technology partners, who can provide training and opportunities for technology transfer.

This strategy is essential for helping Nigerian companies develop the necessary technology more quickly.

Export Inhibition:

Without domestic validation, Nigerian-made defense products face challenges in entering foreign markets.

Nigeria aims to promote exports across all sectors.

For exportation to be successful, our products and solutions must meet international standards.

The export of Nigerian defense products will struggle unless these items are first given a chance to succeed in Nigeria.

We need to develop our local industry, validate our products, and then actively launch them into regional and continental markets.

BRAZIL AND INDIA: CASE STUDIES IN STRATEGIC PATRONAGE

Countries such as Brazil and India have demonstrated how intentional local patronage can foster globally competitive defense industries.

In Brazil, companies like Embraer and IMBEL grew under government-backed contracts and patronage.

The Brazilian Armed Forces committed to buying local, even when products were still under development and maturing.

Today, Brazil exports military aircraft and arms globally and has become a respected defense manufacturer.

Nigerian companies require more than just praise; they need patronage. Securing contracts, creating opportunities, and engaging in long-term planning are essential for our local defense firms to thrive.

India’s ‘Make in India’ initiative transformed its defense sector by mandating local sourcing.

Companies like Bharat Forge, TATA Advanced Systems, and Larsen & Toubro received long-term government backing, which allowed them to scale and improve.

India now produces high-quality drones, tanks, and artillery systems with export potential.

The lesson is clear: Nations that support local firms boost their economies, strengthen national defense, and enhance global influence.

A CALL FOR REORIENTATION IN NIGERIA

Nigerian companies require more than just praise; they need patronage. Securing contracts, creating opportunities, and engaging in long-term planning are essential for our local defense firms to thrive.

We call on the Nigerian Armed Forces, the Ministry of Defence, the Police, and all relevant government agencies to:

Adopt a Local-First Procurement Policy: Allocate a specific percentage of all defense procurement contracts to Nigerian companies.

Award Contracts for Capability and Growth:

Support local businesses by placing genuine orders instead of merely making promises or running pilot tests.

Various procurement models can be utilized to encourage the growth of local companies while minimizing risks for buyers.

We urge the Armed Forces and relevant purchasers to explore these models in the interest of our collective growth.

Foster Strategic Partnerships with Local Leadership:

The federal government, the armed forces, the police, and all other buyers should require foreign companies to partner with Nigerian companies to secure contracts.

Similar to the laws in places like Dubai, foreign companies should not be eligible to secure defense contracts in Nigeria directly.

They must partner with Nigerian defense companies to facilitate knowledge transfer and equity sharing with Nigerian firms.

Create End-User Incentives:

Encourage military and police leaders to implement solutions made in Nigeria and provide rewards for successful adoption.

Establish a Nigerian Defence Development Fund:

The government should create a Nigerian Defence Development Fund to provide long-term capital to local firms for research and development, infrastructure, and certifications.

THE TIME IS NOW

Nigeria’s future security needs to be developed within the country. This requires us to trust our own companies and local initiatives to provide the solutions we need.

Like Brazil and India, we must be willing to support homegrown solutions and products through their early challenges, understanding that true mastery comes with experienced local companies cannot thrive on encouragement alone—they require contracts, partnerships, and a long-term belief from their own country.

We possess the talent, ambition, and drive. What we need now is opportunity.

If Nigeria aims to become a true continental power in defense and technology, the change must begin with a simple decision:

Buy Nigerian, trust Nigerian, and defend Nigerian.

• This article was written by Bem Ibrahim Garba, a defense industry professional and advocate for indigenous industrial growth in Nigeria.