Shell’s Historical Violations in Its Operations in the Niger Delta, Nigeria
Student’s Name
Due Date
Table of Contents
Step 2-Shell Operations in Nigeria. 4
Step 2: Effort to Curb the Violations. 7
Alleged Complicity in Abuses. 8
- Legally. 11
- Access to Justice. 11
- Transparency and Accountability: 11
- Collaboration with countries. 12
- Empowering Local Communities. 12
Introduction
- Records of rampant extra-judicial killings, the violations of human rights, allegations of environmental degradation, and the excessive abuse of power by the Nigerian government in the facilitation of Shell company’s illegal or unethical conduct in the efforts to extract oil from the Niger Delta and which must be dealt with appropriately.[1] There have been legal tussles seeking to establish a basis for finding international accountability for Shell toward compensating the illegal undertakings not recorded but instead perpetuated against Nigerian communities in its over 50 years of operations in the Niger Delta. In reports recorded by Amnesty International, two severely damaged Nigerian communities, Ogale and Bille, have filed lawsuits against Shell at the London High Court to this effect. However, the injunction is yet to be derived to settle the unrevealed inhumane actions against the affected communities.[2] Amnesty International claims that over 13,500 people from these communities sued Shell, demanding that the company clean up oil spills that they claim have destroyed their livelihoods, contaminated their wells, and contaminated their land and water.[3] However, this filing and subsequent litigation processes have been faced with the organization’s efforts to exempt itself from being active in the activities linked to spillages and human rights violations. Thus, initiating action efforts to pursue the rights of the Nigerian communities legally has been met with challenges of Shell’s intention to exit the market, seemingly watering down the process to have remedies, as initiated by the community leaders and Amnesty International, among other bodies.
The local leaders and international human rights bodies’ efforts faced the historical covertness of the cases. They may only succeed if adequate and intentional collaborations are undertaken with urgency. Recent efforts by Shell to cede its operations in Nigeria have been planned, and steps have been orchestrated to evade an ultimate requirement to pay for the crimes.[4] The organization safeguarded its operation after the trials were raised against its brand. Shell seems to be adopting these strategies as a disguise to blind society using themes of its efforts to overcome the challenges of climate change, among other operational strategies. For instance, its recent intention to withdraw its operations in Nigeria, as announced in the post-Covid Era, is noted as such a move. It is noted that following 60 years of highly profitable operations in the Niger Delta, Shell stated in 2021 that it intended to sell its onshore oilfields and related assets within the region to enhance its operational strength globally.[5] These efforts are a reactionary undertaking because Shell never disclosed its plans for resolving the pervasive and systemic pollution of Nigerian communities caused by its operations over a long period. They seem to disregard the occurrences recorded under their name before selling up and departing, and such moves raise concerns about the presence of accomplices within the Nigerian authorities. There are believes that this is a response to the ruling that the trial aims to prove that the legal responsibility for the harm done to Nigerian communities rests with Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary, the Shell Petroleum Development Corporation (SPDC), and its parent corporation, Shell, in Europe.[6] The company may win its battle owing to its economic maneuvers, but the backstops where the organization has denied the community its ability to fish and cultivate. These community resources have been destroyed by pollution. Shell Corporations owe Nigeria’s citizens basic human decency, which includes ethical business practices, environmental responsibility, fair compensation for harm caused, and active community involvement.[7] Enforcing this involves Collaboration between government bodies, international organizations, and civil society, with legal frameworks, penalties for violations, and multi-stakeholder oversight ensuring accountability.
Shell Operations in Nigeria
Background
The controversy in Nigeria with Shell Corporation is long-standing, dating back to the company’s early operations there. Shell has been accused of a variety of wrongdoing, including the company’s involvement with the Nigerian government in perpetrating or abetting crimes such as rape, torture, and murderous acts within the oil-producing Niger Delta region. Besides, there have been rampant cases of pollution with the ultimate killing of any perpetrators of opposition to such actions. Protests conducted by the Umuechum villagers saw most of them perish at the hands of the paramilitary, and they were airing their views. Still, they would not be so owing to the security concession.[8] During this protest, it was recorded that eighty people were killed when the police arrived. Shell’s activities went undisrupted despite lacking sufficient analysis, such as the use of progressive evaluation of their activities on the community based on reflections within the society. The government took advantage of the fact that there was not much media coverage of the armed forces’ involvement. It was only organizations such as Amnesty International and other organizations released a lot of information on events like Ken Saro-Wiwa’s detention and the unlawful killings of Ogoni civilians.[9] These events were unfortunate, with the State remaining adamant about handling the cases of concerns that the community was tabling for a check.
Shell maintained tight ties to the internal security agency of Nigeria in gagging the protesters opposing pollution in the Ogoniland region, alleging it was caused by Shell Oil Company’s activities with the facilitation of the Nigerian government. The Protestants were brutally suppressed by the authorities dating back to the 1990s. Worst of all is that at the end of it all, there was the execution of eight men known as the Ogoni Nine, including the author and the critical campaigner Ken Saro-Wiwa, who advocated for the rights of the inhabitants to be upheld.[10] The governments gagged them without being linked to the shell case. The instances and how they have been handled locally and globally have been assessed by Amnesty International through an innovative examination of thousands of pages of government records, witness testimony, archival material, and other supporting documentation. When taken together, they expose Shell’s involvement in rape, torture, and murder carried with the illegal engagement of officials within the Nigerian government.
Shell has been accused of causing widespread pollution in the Niger Delta, and the solutions have not seen the company’s illegal engagements prosecuted within the legal systems.[11] Shell’s operation within the oil-rich region of Nigeria, where it operates, has been marred with significant patronage from the authorities.[12] The company has not been legally addressed despite being accused by locals of spilling oil, leaking gas, and flaring gas, all of which have caused significant environmental damage. For instance, any time there were incidences of pollution, the executives from Shell frequently reminded government representatives of the economic impact of any uprising.[13] The company pressed the government to solve the protest problems, which they alleged would lead to losses. It is believed that this was accompanied by the company’s provision of finances to the officials to make them seal the cases and not investigate the matters but protect the company’s interests.
Accusations against Shell are similar to other cases where oil companies have played economic superiority within the communities in which they operate. The business is charged with bribing military leaders and supporting the armed forces logistically. Global energy security, as well as Nigeria’s peace and prosperity, depend on the Niger Delta Region’s sustainable growth. Nonetheless, the Niger Delta has seen protracted violent conflicts over the past 20 years. The populace’s sincere desire for sustainable development predicated on social justice, equity, fairness, and environmental protection lays the groundwork for these violent conflicts. Shell’s role in this conflict has been sustained for a long time.
Revenue Mismanagement
Another significant issue has been the mismanagement of revenue from oil extraction. There have been accusations that the Nigerian government has not received its fair share of profits from oil sales due to corruption, flawed contracts, and alleged underreporting of the amount of oil extracted. To help everyone living in the little rural village of Ogale, which is still being contaminated, lawyers are asking for damages for allegedly causing harm to community-owned property and the thousands of individual claims brought against Shell.[14] Where the wells are located, the water resources that provide Ogale with most of its water for farming, fishing, and drinking have been seriously contaminated by oil, according to sources.[15] Fish deaths and contaminated drinking water are two further effects of pollution, destroying agriculture. All the water from Ogale’s borehole taps or wells is either visibly brown or covered in a layer of oil, much of which smells strongly of oil.
Effort to Curb the Violations
Human Rights Abuses
One of the most famous violations of human rights was perpetrated in Ogoniland. This consideration is one of the famous cases that involved the execution of environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni leaders in 1995. These leaders were outspoken community activists who were advocating against Shell’s oil operations and their environmental impact on the Ogoni land[16]. The government participated in having them undergo trial for charges of inciting the community against a company and private entity. They were alleged to cause social disruptions and interruption of Shell’s activities, being a company with good economic interests in the region. Their trial was widely condemned as unfair and sparked international outrage against Shell’s alleged participation in their persecution. In a prior case only noted by Amnesty International, the company wrote to the governor of Rivers State in 1993 requesting his intervention to enable the company to run its operations, which they deemed supportive of the region’s economy.[17] They provided supportive allegations that the nature of the business meant a lot to the nation’s economy and that the government could not allow the people to disrupt the significant efforts that the company was making to empower the region economically. Thus, the company’s primary stake was the disruption of normalcy in the area. In another situation and following General Abacha’s takeover of the State in November 1993, Shell wrote to the newly appointed military administrator of Rivers State, claiming disruption of its business in the region.[18] The company did so almost immediately after the new General was installed and sought the undisrupted uncovering of its illegal engagements, They made claims that there was sabotage, blockade, and community disturbances.[19] They alleged that these community uprisings had caused a significant decline in production and requested assistance to eliminate the disruptions. They intentionally intended to gag the community from airing their views, which would be attributed to the intentional violation of the right to expression.
Alleged Complicity in Abuses
The Government in Nigeria has been alleged to have abetted the crimes perpetrated by Shell Company. Human rights organizations filed lawsuits against Shell at the start of 1996 to hold the company responsible for claimed abuses of human rights in Nigeria.[20] These claims were filed in the USA and alleged that the company has, in collaboration with the governments of the time, been involved in crimes against humanity and summary execution of activists in allegations of malice against the company’s business. Shell’s illegal complicity in the torture of innocent community men, cruel treatment of activists of human rights, and arbitrary arrest and imprisonment were not met with adequate opposition to its operation.[21] However, the company continued to talk with the government about methods to solve the issue even after the Ogoni Nine were imprisoned, tortured, and later executed under mysterious circumstances[22]. Shell showed little care for the detainees’ fate and presumed that their role would be to exhibit how their business was doing as opposed to their role in falsely accusing the detained.[23] This silence triggered the ultimate execution of the individuals, and the records of these cases were never released to the public until investigative approaches to bodies such as Amnesty International were initiated. Shell subsequently stated that it supported the Ogoni Nine’s release by working behind the scenes.
Niger Delta Communities
As noted earlier, some various cases and reports adequately highlighted the impact of Shell’s operations on communities in the Niger Delta. These were not allegations but actual cases despite their occurrence being sealed and covert by the facilitation of the authorities at the time.[24] With the rise in concerns over commercial ethics and the desire to have the brand instigated for the cases, these allegations became significant upon the organization’s concerns regarding being involved in environmental damage, displacement, and a lack of adequate compensation for the local population. The cases may have met the attention of the international communities. Still, they may also be a key concern as the affected by oil spills and related activities came to the limelight as global concerns.[25] Moreover, the fact that these cases contributed to a broader pattern of climate change was an additional violation besides human rights violations. The community in the Niger Delta had health issues emanating from the regular spill even as they lost their environment, the various impacts the same had on their environment, and the general concerns over lost wealth following the perpetrated fights.[26] Shell was financing the military interruptions in the regions to facilitate their activities and ensure that the community was submissive to the power gained from government support.[27] As these efforts have been focused on empowering the community’s role to participate in the region, there needs to be more low effectiveness.[28] Several factors have limited the effectiveness of these efforts, including the complexity of transnational legal proceedings, the power dynamics favoring multinational corporations, and sometimes inadequate legal frameworks in the affected countries. The lengthy legal processes can also exhaust resources and time for impacted communities, often leading to prolonged struggles without definitive resolutions.[29] However, there are efforts that can be improved and ultimately lead to a better request for the struggle to have the team reach a desirable ending for these matters. These efforts can be addressed within the following categories.
a. Legally
Both international and local enforcement must be attracted to addressing the predicament of irresponsible Shell operations in the Niger Delta. A common ground must be reached between the local community advocates, the government representatives, and the international community activists such as Amnesty International to reach a consensus on easing the lengthy legal process involved in looking at the Nigerian case.[30] According to a ruling by the High Court, in January 2023, there was authorization that the over 13,000 Nigerian farmers and fishermen at the center of a significant oil pollution lawsuit against Shell may file claims for violations of their constitutionally guaranteed right to a clean environment. The authorization meant that the institution would ideally go to the legal mechanisms in place to help deal with the community’s compensation. Subsequently, UK multinationals will have been judged to have violated a community’s right to a clean environment for the first time in legal history. Regarding the lawsuit against the parent firm, the plaintiffs contended that RDS was negligent in stopping and reducing the oil leak that its Nigerian subsidiary, SPDC, was responsible for.[31] This will involve reviewing the cases and implementing and reinforcing laws defining corporate responsibilities regarding environmental protection and human rights. Such reviews must apply to historical injustices already perpetrated by companies like Shell.
b. Access to Justice
Communities and their representatives must be accorded the right to be heard within the justice system and as well be given a chance to stand their ground without intimidation or sabotage. This will ensure that the affected communities can access fair and timely legal recourse without facing financial or procedural barriers. There were struggles to access the justice system until the twelve Nigerians filed the Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell) lawsuit in 2002. Since the oil business generates more than 60% of Nigeria’s total government revenue, it is not unexpected that oil-related litigation has become a significant area of the country’s legal landscape.[32] The primary barrier to court access for prospective plaintiffs is money, although ignorance also plays a significant role in the second and third most important issues. Communities in oil-producing regions often need to be made aware of their legal rights. Nigerian courts are home to hundreds of lawsuits involving oil. For example, Shell was said to be involved in hundreds of ongoing legal disputes in Nigeria, most occurring at the close of the 20th century. Damages and allegations against on-the-ground oil operations accounted for most of these cases. Of the almost 500 issues that have been going on in various litigations, 70%, or about 300 points, deal with oil spills, with the remaining percentage of about 150 patients leading to contracts, employment or taxation, and other forms of damage resulting from oil operations in the Niger Delta.[33] The latter charges in 2002 succeeded in pressing the charges against the Shell Company. They assisted the authorities in enabling the violations of their human rights because the Nigerian government in the Ogoni region never offered legal assistance to address their concerns. This lawsuit is one of many filed against Shell concerning the forceful dismantling of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni people, a community organization advocating for indigenous rights and opposing oil company pollution.[34] Such establishments will curb the presence of illegalities in any corporate developments within the community.
c. Transparency and Accountability:
As noted in the Shell cases, there was opaque in how claims were handled. The government played a significant role in sealing the participation of the individuals from the shell and diverting the authorities’ ethics at the expense of human rights violations.[35]. Thus, there is a need to establish more open mechanisms for better transparency in engagements between the government and any interested entity that operates in society. Various UN treaty bodies have noted how limited liability creates a barrier to corporate accountability and remedy.[36] For example, the Committee on Environmental Concerns at UNEP notes that corporate groups are structured in a way that allows business entities to routinely avoid liability by putting up a front for them as the parent company tries to avoid responsibility for the actions of the subsidiary even though it could have had the power to influence their behavior.[37] Calling for protection from security forces increases the obligation of the oil company to ensure that intervention does not result in human rights violations. Undoubtedly, the Niger Delta conflict was attributed to personal grievances, hatred, and the government’s indifference to the people’s plight and the environment.[38] Of particular significance was the environmental damage brought about by oil exploration and exploitation and the long-term effects on people’s health and way of life. Human initiatives toward the generation of conflicts can only be understood by understanding what triggers conflict and the various societal signs and symbols often displayed before the manifestation of clashes.[39] However, even in cases where the security forces have acted without a specific request for assistance from the company, the companies should not be allowed to exhibit any apathy to the abuse of those results. As noted earlier, in most cases, the oil company would not report any attempt to monitor or protest human rights violations. This was even worse with the compromise of the security forces against those who have expressed concerns about environmental issues, asked for financial compensation or employment, protested oil company activity, or threatened oil production.[40] Such mechanisms will offer greater corporate transparency and accountability, such as regular reporting on environmental impact and community engagement.
d. Collaboration with countries
Amnesty International has laid the ground for international players, not just rights activists, to intervene whenever unethical conduct is noted. When Nations violate human rights, they are exposed to the International Jurisdiction, within which prosecutions are conducted and effected. Besides, bodies such as the UN must play critical roles in dealing with entities that violate international human rights statutes.[41]. However, financing activities by such organizations may hamper such international interventions, noting that there may be tendencies of conflict of interest. Governmental organizations may have a minimal oversight role, but most compensation talks are bilateral between the impacted community and the oil company.[42] As a result, the corporation has nearly total control over the negotiation, payment, and valuation processes. Because they are typically forced to take whatever compensation the firms provide in these circumstances, the impacted communities are in an unfair bargaining position.[43]. While independent attorneys and environmental organizations are working to keep an eye on how the oil companies are following the law and supporting the oil communities in pursuing their claims, their efforts have previously been severely impeded by harassment by security forces, office raids, detentions, and other forms of repression.[44] There will be a significant necessity to encourage international cooperation and coordination among governments, legal systems, NGOs, and corporations to address cross-border issues effectively.
e. Empowering Local Communities
Communities deserve the right to earn and have a vocal role in managing their resources. This can be established through the local groups for advocating for the community’s rights in managing the help and as well as dictating or participating in deriving the proper undertakings for the company’s interests.[45] Community training, empowerment, and provision of roles in governmental undertakings will play a role in alleviating cases of abuse and failure to handle matters like in the case of Shell. The social and environmental costs of producing crude oil in the region have been disastrous due to international oil companies’ unhealthy, destructive activities. They include depletion of drinking water and air quality, loss of productive soil, harm to aquatic ecosystems, and deterioration of farmlands and animals. As a result, in the fifty years since the black gold was discovered, the Niger Delta region has seen widespread poverty and desolation due to the ecological destruction of farmland and carelessness brought on by the production of crude oil[46]. Even more concerning is the low degree of development among the local population. It would be ideal to provide support, resources, and legal assistance to affected communities to better advocate for their rights and interests. Community participants in the debates and legal tussles towards settling cases like Shell’s will help support better societal considerations.
Conclusion
Shell’s operations in Nigeria’s Delta region have historically been under criticism, noting that the violations that were perpetuated against the communities were not recorded appropriately and not prosecuted owing to the government’s patronage. The local communities in the region suffered human rights violations, their resources were destroyed, and they were never given the right to be heard. These under ratings have seen Shell try to leave the market, and in these efforts, there are few interventions from the legal frameworks, the local government, and other bodies that can ease the local sufferings.[47]. Besides, the efforts have been marred by the stakeholders’ need for the appropriate will, and the need to have legal reviews, community advocacy, and empowerment is seemingly overdue.
This paper has evaluated the background information regarding the encounters that the Nigerians, specifically the Ogoniland communities, underwent at the hands of Shell Company in Collaboration with the Nigerian Authorities. A highlight on the cases of the murders that were perpetrated against individuals, especially the killing of Ken Saro-Wiwa, among other activities, as they exhibited efforts to break the barriers that existed with consisted collaborations between the governments in propagating illegal activities at the expense of human rights violations. In addition, the reports have focused on the shortcomings that existed in the lack of goodwill in the authorities to allow the litigation of the cases that the activist initially tabled to help in overcoming the challenges. Subsequently, the focus on the areas that need to be addressed, including using policy to enhance the legal frameworks and embracing better collaborations between human rights activists and the international jurisdiction, is likely to help overcome the local limitations to access rights. These recommendations are tabled with considering the role of internationally recognized bodies being highlighted as a critical focal point of ensuring that the progressions of the compensation orders already realized become a reality to the victims. Nevertheless, the study establishes the need for the will and infrastructure to help effect the process of making the communities aware, involved, informed, and responsive in vetting investors’ presence.
Bibliography
Abuba, Chioma E. “The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Curbing Insecurity in Nigeria’s Niger Delta Region.” Rethinking Securities in an Emergent Technoscientific New World Order, 2018, 343-360. doi:10.2307/j.ctvh9vv68.16.
Adewole, Adeyeye. “Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Practices and the Challenge of Taking Ownership: A Case Study of Frustrations of Shell Petroleum Development Company in Niger-Delta Region of Nigeria.” Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal 5, no. 1 (2018). doi:10.14738/assrj.51.4082.
Amnesty International. “Nigeria: Amnesty activists uncover serious negligence by oil giants Shell and Eni.” Human Rights Documents Online, 2018. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/nigeria-amnesty-activists-uncover-serious-negligence-by-oil-giants-shell-and-eni/.
Amnesty International. “Nigeria: Shell Must Clean Up Devastating Oil Spills in the Niger Delta Shell Oil Spill Nigeria Trial.” Amnesty International. Last modified February 7, 2023. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/02/nigeria-shell-oil-spill-trial/.
Asini, M. I. “Safety in Waterborne Operations in Nigeria: Shell Nigeria Experience.” All Days, 1991. doi:10.2118/23231-ms.
Ayodele, James O. “Crimes and Internal Security in Nigeria.” Internal Security Management in Nigeria, 2019, 215-231. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-8215-4_11.
Bird, Frederick. “Wealth and Poverty in the Niger Delta: A Study of the Experiences of Shell in Nigeria.” International Businesses and the Challenges of Poverty in the Developing World, 2004, 34-63. doi:10.1057/9780230522503_3.
Boele, Richard, Heike Fabig, and David Wheeler. “Shell, Nigeria and the Ogoni. A study in unsustainable development: I. The story of Shell, Nigeria and the Ogoni people – environment, economy, relationships: conflict and prospects for resolution1.” Sustainable Development 9, no. 2 (2001), 74-86. doi:10.1002/sd.161.
Ekanem, Jemimah T., Ike Nwachukwu, and Unyime R. Etuk. “Impact of Shell’s Sustainable Community Development Approach on the Livelihood Activities of Community Beneficiaries in the Niger Delta, Nigeria.” Journal of Sustainable Society 3, no. 2 (2014). doi:10.11634/216825851403583.
Isike, Christopher. “Women, Inclusiveness and Participatory Governance in Nigeria’s Niger Delta: A Focus on Shell’s Model of Community Development in the Region.” Journal of Social Sciences 49, no. 3-1 (2016), 205-214. doi:10.1080/09718923.2016.11893614.
Manby, Bronwen. “Shell in Nigeria: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Ogoni Crisis.” 2000. doi:10.4135/9781473968738.
Nwozor, Agaptus. “Depoliticizing environmental degradation: revisiting the UNEP environmental assessment of Ogoniland in Nigeria’s Niger Delta region.” GeoJournal 85, no. 3 (2019), 883-900. doi:10.1007/s10708-019-09997-x.
Olowu, D. “From defiance to engagement: An evaluation of Shell’s approach to conflict resolution in the Niger Delta.” African Journal on Conflict Resolution 10, no. 3 (2011). doi:10.4314/ajcr.v10i3.63321.
Othman, Adel H. “Role of International Criminal Court in Reducing Human Rights Violations.” International Journal of Criminology and Sociology 9 (2022), 1542-1547. doi:10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.175.
Parry, K. “Health Risk Assessment (HRA): A Case Study—Implementing HRA Into the Shell Petroleum Development Company Ltd., Nigeria.” All Days, 2006. doi:10.2118/98606-ms.
Roht-Arriaza, Naomi. “Amnesty and the International Criminal Court.” International Crimes, Peace, and Human Rights: The Role of the International Criminal Court, 2000, 77-82. doi:10.1163/9789004479746_011.
Thomas, Ayoola O., and Shell Nigeria. “A Case Study of the Factors that Impact Horizontal Oil Well Production Performance in the Niger Delta.” All Days, 2011. doi:10.2118/150732-ms.
Ukaga, Okechukwu, Ukoha Ukiwo, and Ibaba S. Ibaba. Natural Resources, Conflict, and Sustainable Development: Lessons from the Niger Delta. London: Routledge, 2012.
Vozza, Donato. “Historical Pollution and Human Rights Violations: Is There a Role for Criminal Law?” Historical Pollution, 2017, 385-421. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56937-6_13.
Wetzel, Julia R. “Nigeria, Shell and the Ogoni People.” Human Rights in Transnational Business, 2016, 11-18. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31325-2_2.
Whiskey, Monday O., and Majority Oji. “Evaluation of the Level of Variability of Niger Delta Community People’s Awareness and Knowledge of Chevron Regional Development Councils (RDCs) and Shell’s Cluster Development Boards (CDBs) Activities.” Studies in Media and Communication 11, no. 1 (2023), 33. doi:10.11114/smc.v11i1.5866.
Top of Form
[1] Amnesty International. “Nigeria: Amnesty activists uncover serious negligence by oil giants Shell and Eni.” Human Rights Documents Online, 2018. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/nigeria-amnesty-activists-uncover-serious-negligence-by-oil-giants-shell-and-eni
[2] Ayodele, James O. “Crimes and Internal Security in Nigeria.” Internal Security Management in Nigeria, 2019, 215-231. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-8215-4_11.
[3] Amnesty International. “Nigeria: Amnesty activists uncover serious negligence by oil giants Shell and Eni.”
[4] Boele, Richard, Heike Fabig, and David Wheeler. “Shell, Nigeria and the Ogoni. A study in unsustainable development: I. The story of Shell, Nigeria and the Ogoni people – environment, economy, relationships: conflict and prospects for resolution1.” Sustainable Development 9, no. 2 (2001), 74-86. doi:10.1002/sd.161.
[5] Amnesty International. “Nigeria: Shell Must Clean Up Devastating Oil Spills in the Niger Delta Shell Oil Spill Nigeria Trial.” Amnesty International. Last modified February 7, 2023. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/02/nigeria-shell-oil-spill-trial/.
[6] Amnesty International. “Nigeria: Shell Must Clean Up Devastating Oil Spills in the Niger Delta Shell Oil Spill Nigeria Trial.”
[7] Ayodele, James O. “Crimes and Internal Security in Nigeria.” Internal Security Management in Nigeria, 2019, 215-231. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-8215-4_11.
[8] Manby, Bronwen. “Shell in Nigeria: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Ogoni Crisis.” 2000. doi:10.4135/9781473968738.
[9] Boele, Richard, Heike Fabig, and David Wheeler. “Shell, Nigeria and the Ogoni. A study in unsustainable development: I. The story of Shell, Nigeria and the Ogoni people – environment, economy, relationships: conflict and prospects for resolution1.” Sustainable Development 9, no. 2 (2001), 74-86. doi:10.1002/sd.161.
[10] Manby, Bronwen. “Shell in Nigeria: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Ogoni Crisis.”
[11] Bird, Frederick. “Wealth and Poverty in the Niger Delta: A Study of the Experiences of Shell in Nigeria.” International Businesses and the Challenges of Poverty in the Developing World, 2004, 34-63. doi:10.1057/9780230522503_3.
[12] Parry, K. “Health Risk Assessment (HRA): A Case Study—Implementing HRA Into the Shell Petroleum Development Company Ltd., Nigeria.” All Days, 2006. doi:10.2118/98606-ms.
[13] Bird, Frederick. “Wealth and Poverty in the Niger Delta: A Study of the Experiences of Shell in Nigeria.”
[14] Ekanem, Jemimah T., Ike Nwachukwu, and Unyime R. Etuk. “Impact of Shell’s Sustainable Community Development Approach on the Livelihood Activities of Community Beneficiaries in the Niger Delta, Nigeria.” Journal of Sustainable Society 3, no. 2 (2014). doi:10.11634/216825851403583.
[15] Manby, Bronwen. “Shell in Nigeria: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Ogoni Crisis.”
[16] Amnesty International. “Nigeria: Shell Must Clean Up Devastating Oil Spills in the Niger Delta Shell Oil Spill Nigeria Trial.”
[17] Manby, Bronwen. “Shell in Nigeria: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Ogoni Crisis
[18] Thomas, Ayoola O., and Shell Nigeria. “A Case Study of the Factors that Impact Horizontal Oil Well Production Performance in the Niger Delta.” All Days, 2011. doi:10.2118/150732-ms.
[19] Manby, Bronwen. “Shell in Nigeria: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Ogoni Crisis.”
[20] Parry, K. “Health Risk Assessment (HRA)”
[21] Isike, Christopher. “Women, Inclusiveness and Participatory Governance in Nigeria’s Niger Delta: A Focus on Shell’s Model of Community Development in the Region.” Journal of Social Sciences 49, no. 3-1 (2016), 205-214. doi:10.1080/09718923.2016.11893614.
[22] Boele, Richard, Heike Fabig, and David Wheeler. “Shell, Nigeria and the Ogoni”
[23] Ayodele, James O. “Crimes and Internal Security in Nigeria.”
[24] Manby, Bronwen. “Shell in Nigeria: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Ogoni Crisis.”
[25] Amnesty International. “Nigeria: Amnesty activists uncover serious negligence by oil giants Shell and Eni.”
[26] Nwozor, Agaptus. “Depoliticizing environmental degradation: revisiting the UNEP environmental assessment of Ogoniland in Nigeria’s Niger Delta region.” GeoJournal 85, no. 3 (2019), 883-900. doi:10.1007/s10708-019-09997-x.
[27] Amnesty International. “Nigeria: Shell Must Clean Up Devastating Oil Spills in the Niger Delta Shell Oil Spill Nigeria Trial.”
[28] Ayodele, James O. “Crimes and Internal Security in Nigeria.”
[29] Thomas, Ayoola O., and Shell Nigeria. “A Case Study of the Factors that Impact Horizontal Oil Well Production Performance in the Niger Delta.”
[30] Amnesty International. “Nigeria: Amnesty activists uncover serious negligence by oil giants Shell and Eni.”
[31] Whiskey, Monday O., and Majority Oji. “Evaluation of the Level of Variability of Niger Delta Community People’s Awareness and Knowledge of Chevron Regional Development Councils (RDCs) and Shell’s Cluster Development Boards (CDBs) Activities.” Studies in Media and Communication 11, no. 1 (2023), 33. doi:10.11114/smc.v11i1.5866.
[32] Manby, Bronwen. “Shell in Nigeria: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Ogoni Crisis.”
[33] Ayodele, James O. “Crimes and Internal Security in Nigeria.”
[34] Roht-Arriaza, Naomi. “Amnesty and the International Criminal Court.” International Crimes, Peace, and Human Rights: The Role of the International Criminal Court, 2000, 77-82. doi:10.1163/9789004479746_011.
[35] Adewole, Adeyeye. “Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Practices and the Challenge of Taking Ownership:
[36] Manby, Bronwen. “Shell in Nigeria: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Ogoni Crisis.”
[37] Thomas, Ayoola O., and Shell Nigeria. “A Case Study of the Factors that Impact Horizontal Oil Well Production Performance in the Niger Delta.”
[38] Abuba, Chioma E. “The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Curbing Insecurity in Nigeria’s Niger Delta Region.” Rethinking Securities in an Emergent Technoscientific New World Order, 2018, 343-360. doi:10.2307/j.ctvh9vv68.16.
[39] Manby, Bronwen. “Shell in Nigeria: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Ogoni Crisis.”
[40] Ukaga, Okechukwu, Ukoha Ukiwo, and Ibaba S. Ibaba. Natural Resources, Conflict, and Sustainable Development: Lessons from the Niger Delta. London: Routledge, 2012.
[41] Adewole, Adeyeye. “Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Practices and the Challenge of Taking Ownership:
[42] Amnesty International. “Nigeria: Amnesty activists uncover serious negligence by oil giants Shell and Eni.”
[43] Olowu, D. “From defiance to engagement: An evaluation of Shell’s approach to conflict resolution in the Niger Delta.” African Journal on Conflict Resolution 10, no. 3 (2011). doi:10.4314/ajcr.v10i3.63321.
[44] Thomas, Ayoola O., and Shell Nigeria. “A Case Study of the Factors that Impact Horizontal Oil Well Production Performance in the Niger Delta.”
[45] Amnesty International. “Nigeria: Amnesty activists uncover serious negligence by oil giants Shell and Eni.”
[46] — “Nigeria: Amnesty activists uncover serious negligence by oil giants Shell and Eni.”
[47] Manby, Bronwen. “Shell in Nigeria: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Ogoni Crisis.”