Ruling has been reserved till after Christmas in a legal suit on environmental damage brought against Nigeria’s oil giant, Shell Petroleum Development Corporation (SPDC) and its parent company, Royal Dutch Shell (RDS) by two Nigerian environmental activists.
Fidelis Oguru and Alali Efanga, in conjunction with Friends of the Earth Netherlands (Milieudefensie), an environment organisation which campaigns against environmental damage, heard yesterday morning at the Recht Bank, The Hague Court, that ruling will be made in their case on December 30, 2009
Mr. Oguru and Mr. Efanga, working with Friends of the Earth Netherlands (Milieudefensie), dragged both companies to the court in the Netherlands over a 2005 oil spill that allegedly destroyed their sources of livelihood. If the ruling turns out in favour of the plaintiffs, it will be the first time that Royal Dutch Shell will be liable for the activities of its subsidiary in Nigeria.
The first phase of the trial will determine whether or not Shell Petroleum Development Company, a Nigerian company, can stand trial in the Netherlands. In its letter of defence, Royal Dutch Shell had contested the jurisdiction of the Dutch court to rule on the activities of Shell in Nigeria.
“Today’s hearing related to a June 2005 oil spill at Oruma, Bayelsa State, Nigeria, and was devoted exclusively to question of whether the The Hague District Court has jurisdiction over SPDC in that case,” said Adam Newton, a spokesperson for Royal Dutch Shell, Netherlands.
Attorney for the plaintiffs, Chima Williams, speaking to NEXT after yesterday’s proceedings, said: “After lengthy legal arguments for and against the dismissal of the case on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, the court adjourned the case to 30th December, 2009 for ruling.”
Shell and the community
Royal Dutch Shell claims that the oil spill was a result of a sabotage and that the company could not be held liable for the spill, and that a proper environmental clean-up was carried out. The locals, however, claim otherwise.
“The clean-up was not properly done and it was done adversely. After the clean-up, the fish ponds still contained the crude oil whereby all the fishes died,” said one of the plaintiffs, Mr. Oguru, who requested that the oil company should pay for the damage done. Milieudefensie, the environmental body, further stated that as at March 2008, at least two years after the spill, the community’s residents still had no fish in their ponds.
It said that the Shell has not satisfied the demands of the local residents, and that this was what motivated the action against Royal Dutch Shell, which is the parent company, adding that “a Dutch company with a $27 billion profit cannot walk away from the consequences of its activities.”
“We want Shell-headquarters to take its responsibility; that is why we are ready to take this matter to the court in the Netherlands,” says Mr. Efanga.