Connect with us

News

Divestment: CSOs Throw Weight Behind King Dakolo’s Suit Against Shell

Published

on

The Plaintiff, Agada IV of Ekpetiama Kingdom (Right) and environmental rights activist, Dr. Nnimmo Bassey at the court proceedings yesterday, June 20, 2025 in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State.

By Joseph Ebi Kanjo

A coalition of civil society organisations has thrown its weight behind the suit filed by His Royal Majesty, King
Bubaraye Dakolo, Agada IV of Ekpetiama Kingdom, Bayelsa State, against Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited in its divestment bid.

The civil society organisations drumming support for King Dakolo in his suit before Justice Ayo Emmanuel of the Federal High Court, Yenagoa, are: Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF); Social Action Nigeria; International Working Group on Petroleum Pollution and the Just Transition in the Niger Delta
(IWG); Bayelsa State Non-Governmental Organisations Forum (BANGOF); HEDA Resource Centre; Kebetkache Women Development and Resource Centre, among others.

Advertisement

In the suit marked: FHC/YNG/CS//2025, HRM, King Bubaraye Dakolo, Agada IV of Ekpetiama Kingdom, is the Plaintiff while Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (SPDC) (1st Defendant); Shell Petroleum N.V.(2nd Defendant); Shell PLC (3rd Defendant); Attorney General of the Federation (4th Defendant); Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) (5th Defendant); Minister of Petroleum Resources (6th Defendant) and Renaissance African Energy Limited is the 7th Defendant.

The Plaintiff, through is lawyer, Chuks Ugburu, is seeking a declaration by the honourable court that “the purported sale, assignment, transfer or divestment of the onshore and shallow-water oil and gas assets of the 1st Defendant to the 7th Defendant executed without strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Petroleum Industry Act, 2021, the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) Regulatory Divestment Framework, and without due consultation with and consent from the Plaintiff is unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void.”

The Plaintiff is seeking “A DECLARATION that the failure and refusal of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants to carry out a comprehensive and participatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Host Community Development Plan (HCDP), Decommissioning and Abandonment Plan, prior to initiating and concluding the divestment process, is a violation of the Petroleum Industry Act, 2021 and international environmental law.”

Advertisement

READ ALSO: JUST IN: US Lawmakers Order Investigation Of Shell, Eni For Allegedly Bribing Nigeria’s Ex-President Jonathan, Others

The Plaintiff is also seeking a “A DECLARATION that the 4th, 5th and 6th Defendants have failed in their statutory duties under the Petroleum Industry Act, 2021, including their obligations to regulate and monitor the divestment process, ensure stakeholder consultation and due diligence and safeguard the rights and Interests of host communities like the Plaintiff.”

The Plaintiff is also praying the court to declare “the exclusion of Ekpetiama Kingdom and its leadership from the divestment process amounts to a denial of their right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) under international law and renders the divestment process procedurally and legally defective.”

Advertisement

Also, “A DECLARATION that the continued degradation of the environment, livelihoods and health of the people of Ekpetiama Kingdom, as detailed in the expert findings of the report titled “An Environmental Genocide: Counting the Human and Environmental Cost of Oil in Bayelsa, Nigeria”, is a violation of the constitutional and human rights of the Plaintiff, and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants are liable for the same.”

A DECLARATION that the continuous oil spills, gas flaring, and other environmentally harmful activities of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 7th Defendants in Ekpetiama Kingdom constitute a violation of the Plaintiff’s constitutional right to a clean, safe and healthy environment.”

The Plaintiff is seeking “A DECLARATION that the 1s, 2nd, 3rd and 7th Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the environmental degradation, economic loss and public health crisis caused in Ekpetiama Kingdom.

Advertisement

READ ALSO: Niger Delta Rights Activist, Ozobo Austin, Exposes Shell’s False Claims On Oil Spills

“AN ORDER directing the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 7th Defendants jointly and severally to immediately embark on comprehensive environmental clean-up, remediation and restoration of all polluted sites within Ekpetiama Kingdom.

“AN ORDER mandating the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 7th Defendants jointly and severally to establish and fund a Community Environmental Rehabilitation Fund for Ekpetiama Kingdom to the tune of $1,000,000,000.00 (One Billion United States Dollars).”

Advertisement

“AN ORDER directing the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 7th Defendants to jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the sum of $2,000,000,000.00 (Two Billion United States Dollars) as general and exemplary compensation for the losses, pain, and suffering occasioned by the 1 ^ m – 3 ^ m Defendants’ negligent and reckless operations.

“AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from continuing operations in Ekpetiama Kingdom without first conducting an independent and transparent environmental impact reassessment.

“AN ORDER nullifying the purported transfer, sale or assignment of oil and gas assets from the 1st Defendant to the 7th Defendant for substantial and material noncompliance with the Petroleum Industry Act, 2021, including failures to comply with mandatory environmental, social, and host community obligations.

Advertisement

READ ALSO: Bayelsa Communities Panic Over Shell’s Alleged Gas Flare Plan

“AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st 2nd and 3rd Defendants, whether by themselves, their agents, privies or assigns, from taking any further steps in furtherance of the said divestment to the 7th Defendant or any other person, unless and until full compliance with the provisions of the Petroleum Industry Act, 2021 is demonstrated and approved through judicial and regulatory processes.

“AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the 7th Defendant from entering, operating, managing, or exercising any rights or obligations over the said divested assets located in or impacting the Ekpetiama Kingdom, until lawful compliance with all applicable statutory and regulatory obligations is ensured.

Advertisement

“AN ORDER directing the 4th, 5th and 6th Defendants to immediately conduct a thorough, independent, and transparent regulatory review of the divestment process, including Environmental and Social Impact Assessments, Financial and technical capacity of the 7th Defendant and Decommissioning liabilities and community obligations.”

“AN ORDER compelling the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants to publicly disclose all agreements, undertakings, financial arrangements and environmental plans relating to the divestment and publish a time-bound plan for remediating environmental harm caused in Ekpetiama Kingdom, with the involvement of the Plaintiff.

READ ALSO: PIA: Shell Inaugurates 8 Host Community Development Trusts

Advertisement

“AN ORDER directing the Defendants to jointly and severally undertake immediate remedial measures in Ekpetiama Kingdom as recommended in the “Environmental Genocide” report, including but not limited to clean-up of polluted water bodies and farmlands, provision of potable water and cultural heritage.”

Joining their voices to the Plaintiff, the civil society organisations called on the Federal High Court to “act decisively,” and “restrain Shell and its partners from finalising any asset sale or
divestment until full compliance with environmental and human rights obligations is demonstrated.”

They also urged the court to “compel regulators like the NUPRC to enforce the Petroleum Industry Act
and protect host communities; affirm the rights of indigenous peoples of the Niger Delta to clean environments, safe livelihoods, and full consultation.”

Advertisement

News

Edo: Pandemonium As NDLEA Operatives Chase Escaping Driver With Shooting

Published

on

There was pandemonium at Oka Market, Upper Sakponba Road, Benin City, Friday, as operatives of the State Command of Nigerian Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) shot sporadically in chase of an escaping driver.

In the course of the commotion, traders and residents took to their heels, probably to avoid being hit by stray bullets, while others were confused, not sure of what caused the sporadic gunshots.

The sporadic gunshots which lasted more than five minutes at the gate of the NDLEA Head Office, by Oka Market, followed a hot chase of an articulated vehicle driver who was said to have brushed their (NDLEA) vehicle.

Advertisement

READ ALSO:NDLEA Arrests Two Drug Kingpins, Seizes Cocaine, Heroin, Meth In Lagos

The driver, who reportedly brushed the NDLEA vehicle refused to stop for negation, which prompted officers at the scene to alert their colleagues who waited at the alert.

According to eyewitnesses, as the escaping articulated driver approached the NDLEA office, officers who were said to have been alerted by their colleagues pursuing the trailer began to shoot.

Advertisement

Seven of the tyres of the trailer were deflated by bullets of the NDLEA operatives yet the driver refused to stop.

The officers continued to shoot while pursuing him, until he was caught.

READ ALSO:NDLEA Destroys Over 18,000 KG Of Cannabis In Edo Forest

Advertisement

A source said that the driver brushed their vehicle on the way, and that every effort by the officers to stop him so they could settle the matter proved abortive; hence the gunshots and deflation of the tires.

“It was a simple thing; they jammed our men, but the officers tried to stop him so that they could settle, but the driver refused to stop. That is why the men have been shooting to stop him. Even after bursting about seven tires, he was still running, but we caught him and they are bringing him back to our office,” he concluded.

Calls and messages sent to the commander, Edo State NDLEA Command, Mr. Mitchell Ofoyeju, were not responded to as at when filing this.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

JUST IN: Court Bars Police From Enforcing Tinted Glass Regulation

Published

on

The Federal High Court sitting in Warri has issued an order directing the Nigeria Police Force and the Inspector-General of Police to maintain the status quo in the ongoing case concerning the controversial tinted glass permit.

The case, Suit No. FHC/WR/CS/103/2025: John Aikpokpo-Martins v. Inspector-General of Police & Nigeria Police Force, came up for hearing today.

READ ALSO:Police Clear Pastor Paul Adefarasin Over ‘Gun-like’ Object In Viral Video

Advertisement

Delivering the interim order, the Court directed the police authorities to respect judicial processes pending further proceedings in the matter.

Confirming the development, Kunle Edun, SAN, who led the legal team, noted that the directive is a major step in ensuring that the rule of law is upheld while the substantive issues in the case are being determined.

Details of the ruling and the next adjourned date are expected shortly.

Advertisement

Further updates coming soon…

Continue Reading

News

Court Dismisses Suit Seeking Refund Of Rivers’ Monies Expended By Ibas

Published

on

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday dismissed a suit seeking a refund of all Rivers’ monies in the Consolidated Revenue Fund released, appropriated and expended by the Sole Administrator, retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas.

Justice James Omotosho, in a ruling, held that the Federal High Court (FHC) has no jurisdiction to determine the subject matter, having stemmed from the presidential proclamation of the state of emergency.

The judge upheld the objection raised by lawyers to the defendants, including Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, who represented Ibas in the case.

Advertisement

Justice Omotosho held that it is only the Supreme Court that had the exclusive and original jurisdiction to determine the validity of the declaration of an emergency rule by the president.

“I must not fail to say here that counsel to the claimant ought to make proper research regarding his case before filing same.

“He must make diligent research as to which court has jurisdiction and the necessary parties in the suit before filing his action.

Advertisement

“Counsel has the duty to be professional in making such research rather than spending time spreading misinformation or painting the wrong picture on social media and other broadcast media.

“This court is saddled with a lot of cases, including commercial, civil and criminal matters which makes its time very precious.

“Filing suits which are void abinitio is inimical to the course of justice and the court can suo motu nullify such void suit in order to save its time.

Advertisement

READ ALSO:BREAKING: EFCC Chairman, Former Rivers Sole administrator Ibas In Aso Rock

I therefore hold that a void process cannot activate the jurisdiction of this court.

“In final analysis, the subject matter of this suit is outside the jurisdiction of this court and this court will decline jurisdiction over same,” he said

Advertisement

The judge also declined to transfer the case to Port Harcourt judicial division as part of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.

He held that the application for transfer of the suit back to Rivers was ungrantable.

He said that a look at the provision of the law revealed that the court can only transfer a matter to another judicial division, either a high court of a state or the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

Advertisement

“This court having held that only the Supreme Court can hear and determine matters relating to Proclamation of State of Emergency, it would be totally worthless to then transfer the matter to another judicial division which equally lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

“Since this court has no power to transfer this matter to the Supreme Court, the proper course of action is to refrain from making any other transfer and to strike out the entire processes for lack of jurisdiction.

“Consequently, issue two is resolved against the claimant,” he said.

Advertisement

The judge equally resolved issue three which challenged the discretionary power of chief judge of FHC to have transferred the matter to Abuja for adjudication.

READ ALSO:Court Stops Ibas From Inaugurating Rivers Service Commission Members

Consequently, this court hereby declines jurisdiction over this suit and the originating process filed is hereby declared void as same ought not to have been filed before this court,” he ruled.

Advertisement

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the Incorporated Trustees of Rivsbridge Peace Initiative had, in the suit marked: FHC/PH/CS/43/2025, sued President Bola Tinubu as 1st defendant.

The group also named the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Accountant-General of the Federation (AG-F), the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and Ibas as 2nd to 6th defendants.

The group had queried Ibas’ appointment.

Advertisement

It also sought an order of mandatory injunction, directing the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants to, forthwith, return, refund and or pay back any monies in the Consolidated Revenue Fund belonging to Rivers State released, appropriated and or expended after March 18 when the president declared the state of emergency, among others.

It argued that the action was without compliance with the express provision of Section 120,121,287(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and subsisting Order(s) of the Supreme Court in Rivers State House of Assembly vs Govt of Rivers State (2025).

Justice Omotosho, in another ruling on the second suit, marked: FHC/PH/CS/46/2025, which challenged the power of Ibas to appoint sole administrators for the state’s 23 local government areas of Rivers, was also dismissed.

Advertisement

NAN reports that the suit, filed by the plaintiffs, had Ibas as sole defendant.

Delivering the ruling, the judge upheld the preliminary objection of lawyer to Ibas, Ogunwumiju, that the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi (legal right) to file the suit.

READ ALSO:Rivers LG Administrator Appointed By Ibas Resigns

Advertisement

He said that the plaintiffs were neither one of the suspended LGA chairmen nor could they have filed the suit against the Federal Government or Ibas on a dispute that purportedly affects the general public in Rivers.

“The applicants are mere individuals who happen to be residents of Rivers State.

“Unless and until the consent of the Sole Administrator is obtained and filed with the originating process, this suit is totally void and has no legs upon which to stand.

Advertisement

“The lack of locus standi on the part of the applicants will lead to a dismissal of this action and referral to a higher court for determination of the suit does not arise as this court has no such power,” he said.

He restated that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the case.

In final analysis, the suit of the applicants is bound to fail as this court cannot assume jurisdiction over this matter in view of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of locus standi on the part of the applicants.

Advertisement

“Consequently, this action is hereby dismissed for being void,” Justice Omotosho declared.

NAN had earlier reported that the judge dismissed a suit seeking an order declaring President Tinubu’s suspension of Gov. Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers as illegal.

The suit, marked: FHC/PH/CS/51/2025, was filed by Belema Briggs, Princess Wai-Ogosu, I. Acho, Emmanuel Mark and Hadassa Ada, who claimed to have sued for themselves and residents of Rivers State.

Advertisement

They had listed the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Attorney General of the Federation, Ibas and the Nigerian Navy as defendants.

The plaintiffs had queried the emergency declaration, the suspension of elected officials, including Gov. Fubara, the appointment of a sole administrator and, among others, prayed the court to void the president’s action.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending