




































ACARELAR 2 (2021) 

Page | 105  
 

JUSTIFYING THE CALL FOR REGULATING COMPENSATION FOR OIL SPILLAGE 

IN THE NIGER DELTA: A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE* 

 

Abstract 

This study sought to justify the call for adequate compensation for oil spillage victims in the Niger 

Delta. The exploration of oil in Nigeria is a major source of national development.  Incidentally, 

it is also a source of environmental discomfort, degradation and grief to the oil producing areas 

in the country because of the devastating effect of spillages from pipelines and oil wells. The 

problems of environmental pollution with regard to oil and gas mining operations in Nigeria are 

multifarious. While it could be legal, it could also be political or economic. The violators, the 

multi-national companies, unlike their foreign counterparts refuse to pay fair and adequate 

compensation when pollution occurs. Even when compensation is paid, different standards are 

applied which amounts to double standard. This study looked at some of these problems involved 

in obtaining fair and adequate compensation in the oil and gas sector. Methodology adopted is 

doctrinal while the approaches are analytical, historical and comparative. This involves desk and 

library research; placing reliance on primary and secondary source materials relevant to 

compensation arising from oil and gas pollution. The primary source materials include case laws, 

statues, regulations, international treaties and conventions. A literature review of secondary 

source materials, textbooks, journals, articles and commentaries, case citations, legal news, legal 

dictionaries, law reviews, legal treaties and legal encyclopedias was also undertaken.  

 

Keyword: Oil Spillage, Compensation, Environmental Degradation, Niger-Delta 

 

1. Introduction  

The exploration of oil in Nigeria has become a major source of development but incidentally, it is also 

a source of environmental discomfort, degradation and grief to the oil producing areas in the country 

because of the devastating effect of spillages from pipelines and oil wells. Olanrenaju Fagbohein 1 and 
2 were of the view that, Nigerian courts have not reflected much influence in the area of restoration 

aftermath of oil pollution. The courts had cause to intervene on regular basis to give remedy by way of 

compensation to victims of oil pollution that has been prevented on the right to relief as structured under 

private law.  Akpezi Eleyae Ogbuigwe  3 and Simpson & Fagbohum 4 opined that, no direct provision 

has been made for compensating victims of environmental and industrial pollution, and the few 

provisions on compensation cannot properly cater for the particular situation of such victims. The 

provisions of the Land Use Act, the Petroleum Act, Mineral and Mining Act, and other legislations 

made in respect of compensating victims of environmental degradation only mentioned about 

compensation, but does not go further to specify how a victim can be compensated specifically. The 

provisions of the above legislations had no further solution on how a victim can be adequately 

compensated. Nwosu in his work 5 observed that, there are inherent difficulties faced by victims in their 

quest to make claim under these Common Law Rules. Victims of environmental pollution, who relied 

on these claims, cannot get adequate compensation.  Ebeku’s 6 work in this area of Environmental Law 

just like many other authors examined the common Law of tort based claims of remedies. But he did 

not discuss on how fair and adequate compensation will be paid to victim(s) who suffers injury arising 

                                                           
*By Obioma Helen ONYI-OGELLE, PhD, Reader, Faculty of Law. Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka,Anambra State; and  

*Theophilus JARED, LLM, PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law. Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka,Anambra State. 
1See the law of oil pollution & environmental restoration. A comparative overview published by Odade Publishers, Comfort 

House (3rd floor) 13 Hughes Avenue Alagomeji, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria) and Adamu Kyuma 
2See Environmental Protection Law in Nigeria, published by Ababa Press Ltd, 159 Oyo Road, Coca Cola Area Sanjo, Ibadan 

2012 
3See compensation and remedies for victims of crime in Nigeria edited by Sade Adetiba, published by the Federal Ministry of 

Justice (1990 vol 5) 
4See Environmental Law and Policy published by Law Centre, Faculty of Law, Lagos State University (1990) reprint in 2000 
5See Nwosu L.E. Appropriate Mechanism for Entertainment of Environmental claims Juriscope. A completion of work shop 

materials of Alpha juris containing legal Education 1st ed. Design constrain Ikeja, Lagos, 2001 series 
6 see Ebeku K.S.A, Legal Remedies for Victims of Environmental Pollution in Nigeria, NLPJ Council of Legal Education, 

Nigerian Law School 1998 Vol.2 



ONYI-OGELLE & JARED: Justifying the Call for Regulating Compensation for Oil Spillage in the Niger 

Delta: A Legal Perspective 

Page | 106 
 

from oil pollution. Fekumo 7 opined that, the victims of Environmental Pollution should proof strict 

liability and damages given the poverty level of most victims of environmental pollution in Nigeria. 

But the proof of strict liability will not amount to adequate compensation to victims who suffers injury 

arising from environmental pollution.  

 

Ibidapo-Obe’s 8 limits himself from criminal liability resulting from pollution fines and other penalties, 

but never made mention on how victims of environmental pollution will be adequately compensated, 

and his assertion fall short of the expectations of the victims that suffers injuries arising from oil and 

gas exploration in Nigeria. Adekunbi Imoseni and Nzeribe Abangwu in their article,9 dwelt on the 

factors inhibiting compensation of oil spill victims in the Nigeria oil industry, but never discussed the 

solutions or how such victims be compensation adequately.     

 

According to Section 11(5) of the oil pipelines Act 1959, 10 the holder of a licence shall pay 

compensation: 

(a) To any person whose land or interest in land (whether) or not it is land in respect of which the 

licence has been granted) is injuriously affected by the exercise of the rights conferred by the 

licence, for any such injurious affection not otherwise made good, and;  

(b)  To any person suffering damage by reason of any neglect on the part of the holder or his agents, 

servants, or workmen to protect, maintain or repair any work, structure or thing executed under the 

licence, for any such damage, not otherwise made good, and; 

(c) To any person suffering damage (other than on account of the malicious act of a third person) as a 

consequence of any breakage of or leakage from the pipeline or an ancillary installation, for any 

such damage not otherwise made good. 

 

If the amount of such compensation is not agreed between any such person and the holder, it shall be 

fixed by court in accordance with part IV of this Act. While Section 20 (2) of the oil pipelines Act11 

provides for the various heads of compensation, and this section must be read alongside with section 

11(5), section 20(2) provides as viz:  (i) buildings, crops or profitable trees, (ii) disturbance (iii) injurious 

affections and (iv) loss (if any) in value of the land or interests in land. It is settled law that the principal 

liability of the licensee arising from the above provisions is to pay compensation (as distinct from 

damages) from any injury or damage caused by any person.12 Some observations could be made on the 

above provisions. The liability in section 11(5) (a) covers damages arising from the acquisition of land 

or interest in land for the laying of the oil pipeline and ancillary installations. It also encapsulates 

damages to third party property rights outside the area covered by the licence.13 It also provides for 

injurious affection which is akin to nuisance.14 Secondly, section 11(5) (b) provides for negligence, and 

this had provided an escape route for petroleum operators. Certainly, an action for negligence is 

incompatible with a claim for compensation. In the former the fault element on the part of the defendant 

is paramount, whereas for compensation, the act of the defendant maybe perfectly lawful and faultless, 

what the plaintiff needs to show is that he has suffered some injury. 15Thirdly, section 11(5) (c) provides 

for strict liability, which is akin to the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, with only the two defenses of default 

                                                           
7see Fekumo J.F. ‘Civil Liability for Damages cause by Oil pollution’ in Omotola (ed) Environmental Law in Nigeria including 

compensation, University of Lagos, 1998 
8see Ibidapo – Obe A ‘Criminal Liability of Damages cause by Oil Pollution’ in Omotola (ed) Environmental Law in Nigeria 

including compensation, University of Lagos, 1998 
9see compensation of oil spill victims in Nigeria, the more the oil, the more the blood Singaporean Journal of Business 

Economics and Management Studies vol.2, No.3, 2013, School Of Law and Securities Studies, Babcock University Ilesan 

Reno, Ogun State, Nigeria 
10. Now Cap of LFN 2004 
3. Supra 
12See J.F FEKUMO, Disturbance and injurious Affection in the Nigerian Petroleum Industry (1998) Springfield Publishers, 

Owerri, Nigeria) P.I.I. 
13See Law and Petroleum Industry in Nigeria, Current Challenges, Essay In Honour of Justice Kate Abiri edited by Festus 

Emma Deinduomo, published by Malthouse Press Limited, 2009, 143 Onitana Street, off Stadium Hotel Road, Surulere Lagos 

State, pp 140-141. 
14See Ehorlor v Isahasa (1992) 2 NWLR (pt 223) at pp 336-339, K. Davis, Law of compulsory purchase and compensation 

(1984, 4th ed, Butterwortts, London, pp 178-179. 
15See Per Nnaemeka-Agu JCA (as he then was) in Ndah v Attorney General, Bendel State and others (1979) 12 CA 243 at pp. 

267-268 (1980) 1RSLR, 1 at p.12. 



ACARELAR 2 (2021) 

Page | 107  
 

of the plaintiffs and malicious act of a third party. Not minding the fact that the provisions of section 

11(5) (a) (b) (c) of the Act incorporated the common law remedies of nuisance, negligence, and the rule 

in Rylands V Fletcher, there is no need to allege any of these torts as the duty to pay compensation is 

statutory. All the plaintiff required is to allege and prove that the damage was caused by the defendant, 

arising from the execution of the works authorized by the statute. It is then left for the defendant to raise 

the defence of the default of the plaintiff or the malicious act of a third person. 

 

2. National Laws and Regulations on Compensation of Victims of Oil Spill  

The Nigeria legislations on oil and the environment is provided by several enactment including 

Petroleum Act (originally, Degree N0.31 of 1969)16, Oil Pipeline Act 17, Minerals and Mining Act 18, 

Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 19 and the Associated Gas (Re-Injection) Act 197920, Association Gas Re-

Injection Act (continued Flaring Gas) Regulations, a subsidiary legislation made under section 3 and 5 

of the Act, the Petroleum (Drilling and Production) Regulations of 1969 made under the Petroleum Act, 

Environmental Impact Assessment Act of 199221, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency Act 22 

and its accompanying regulations made under the Act and the Environmental Guidelines as made by 

the Director of Petroleum Resources (DPR). These laws and others provide the rules and regulations 

for the oil industry in Nigeria.   

 

National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (Establishment) Act 

(NESREA) 2007 (2007 Act N0.25 

This Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of the National Environmental Standards and 

Regulations Endorsement Agency, which is saddled with the responsibility for the protection and 

development of the environment in Nigeria and for related matters. It has a total of 38 Sections, 

structured under 6 parts. The Act is a belated response of the law to which was at a time a revolutionary 

change in the structure of environmental enforcement and regulations in Nigeria. It was pursuant to 

FEPA Act that the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) was established. Consequently, 

when the Agency was scrapped out in 1999 and the Ministry of Environment assumed its functions. 

Expectations were high that, the FEPA Act would be reviewed to reflect the new development and that 

in the course of a review, provisions that were inarticulate in the FEPA Act, would become articulate 

in succeeding legislations. 

 

The tenor of the functions of the Agency thereafter changed in the way, it exempted the oil and gas 

sector from the purview of NESREA. Section 7 in certain respect provides that the Agency shall; 

i) To enforce compliance with regulations on the importation, exportation, distribution, storage, sale, 

use, handling and disposal of hazardous chemicals and waste other than in the oil and gas sector 23 

ii) To enforce through compliance monitoring, the environmental regulations and standards on noise, 

air, land, seas, oceans and other water bodies other than in the oil and gas sector 24 

iii) To enforce environmental control measures through registration, licensing and permitting system 

other than in the oil and gas sector25. 

iv) To conduct environmental audit and established data bank on regulation and enforcement 

mechanisms of environmental standards other than in the oil and gas Sector26. 

v) To create public awareness and provide environmental education on sustainable environmental 

management, promote private sector compliance with environmental regulations other than in the 

oil and gas sector and publish general scientific or other date resulting from the performance of its 

functions. 27. 

                                                           
16 Now Cap p.10 LFN 2004 
17 Degree N0. 31 of 1956, now Cap 07 LFN 2004 
18 Degree N0.31 of 1956, now cap pl.12 LFN 2004 
19 Degree N0.38 of 1968, now cap 06 LFN 2004 
20 Now Cap A25 LFN 2004 
21 Cap E12 LFN 2004 
22See 1988 now cap F10 LFN 2004 
23See section 7 (g) NESREA Act 
24See section 7 (k) NESREA Act 
25See Section 7 (j) NESREA Act 
26See Section 7 (k) NESREA Act 
27See section 7 (i) NESREA Act 



ONYI-OGELLE & JARED: Justifying the Call for Regulating Compensation for Oil Spillage in the Niger 

Delta: A Legal Perspective 

Page | 108 
 

Petroleum Act and Other Applicable Regulations    

The schedule1, paragraph 36 of the Act provides thus: 

The holder of an OEL, OPL and OML shall in addition to any liability for compensation 

to which he may be subject under any other provision of this Act, be liable to pay fair 

and adequate compensation for the disturbance of surface or other rights to any person 

who owns or is in lawful occupation of the licensed or leased lands. 

 

Where the oil company fails to perform its duties and obligations imposed on by statute and such neglect 

causes any damage or injury to an individual or community as the case maybe, that company will be 

held liable to pay compensation. The Petroleum (Drilling and Production) Regulation 1969 issued under 

section 9 of the petroleum Act, contains specific protective measures for preserving the land resources 

in areas impacted negatively upon by oil drilling operations28. 

 

Petroleum (Drilling and Production) Regulations  

The licenses granted to the companies are made vicariously liable for all actions and liabilities of 

independent contractors carrying out work on their behalf29. The oil companies are generally obliged to 

adopt all practicable precaution including the provision of up to date equipment to prevent pollution 

and shall take ‘prompt steps to control and if possible end it’ 30 if pollution does not occur it is submitted 

that Regulation 25 envisages a situation where, there will be mass destruction of marine life due to oil 

pollution and therefore urge the lessee to employ appropriate standards (of international standard 

possibly) to prevent, clear and control oil pollution. However, we suggest that, the entire gamut of this 

provision is vague in that, what amounts to ‘practical precaution’ is not articulately specified. It 

therefore means provision of up to date equipment, which is subject to the approval of the director of 

petroleum resources.  

 

Oil Pipeline Act 

The Oil Pipeline is the cheapest and most convenient means of transportation of petroleum from the 

well location to its final destination. This system is applicable to transportation of gas, in construction 

of pipelines and carrying out its operations, the oil company is under an obligation to pay compensation 

for damages breakage or a leakage from oil pipeline or its ancillary installations. The Oil Pipelines Act 
31 provides thus; 

‘The holder of a license shall pay compensation to; 

a) To any person whose land or interest in land (whether or not it is land in respect of which the license 

has been granted) is injuriously affected by the exercise of the rights conferred by the license, for 

any such injurious affection not otherwise made good, and 

b) To any person suffering damage by reason of any neglect on the part of the holder or his agents, 

servants or workmen to protect, maintain or repair any work structure or thing executed under the 

license, for such damage not otherwise made good, and   

c) To any person suffering damage (other than an account of his own default or on account of the 

malicious act of the third person) as consequence of any breakage of or  leakage from the pipeline 

or an ancillary  installation or any such damage not otherwise made good, 

d) If the amount of such compensation is not agreed between any such person and the holders, it shall 

be fixed by a court in accordance with part IV of this Act’. 

 

It should be noted that, holder of a license under this heading, is to exercise his powers subject to the 

provision of this Act and any other enactment or rule of law. 32. Therefore, claims for compensation 

may also succeed under this heading. In the case of San Ikpede v Shell B.P Petroleum Development 

Company (Nig) Ltd, 33 the plaintiff claim for fair and adequate compensation for oil spillage arising 

                                                           
28See M.T. Okorodudu Fubara (1998) Environmental Protection p.378 
29See Regulations 15(2), Petroleum (Drilling and Production) Regulations 
30See Regulation 25 ibid 
31See section 11(5) oil pipelines Act 
32See Section 11(6) ibid 
33See 1973) M.W.S.J.61 



ACARELAR 2 (2021) 

Page | 109  
 

from the leakage of the defendants oil pipeline succeeds under section 11(5) (c) of the Oil Pipelines 

Act. According to Ovie-Whiskey J. (as he then was) 34 opined as quote; 

…all companies who have been granted a license to prospect for crude oil in the country 

under the Petroleum Degree 1969 N0.51, can only lay pipes for carrying crude oil on 

or under the land by virtue of a license granted to them under provisions of the Oil 

Pipelines Act cap 145 35. The Act also made it abundantly clear that the holder of such 

license shall pay compensation to any person suffering damages as a consequence of 

any leakage from the pipelines… 

 

Environmental Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Industry   

The guidelines specifies the needed standards of obligations placed on oil operators, and where there is 

environmental pollution caused abruptly by oil and / or gas. The guidelines makes reference to mystery 

of spills and liability of the polluter thereof, provision is also made for circumstances where the 

licensee/lessee shall be responsible for the containment and subsequent recovery of any spill, which is 

discovered within the operational base whether or not its sources is known. This provision makes the 

explorer and the communities including government to be conscious of the protection of the 

environment however, whether the fund for reimbursement is always available is yet another matter for 

consideration.36. When pollution occurs, the polluter is held solely liable. 37 But where there are multiple 

pollutions from different explorers, liability is joint and several. 38 The polluter is also responsible in 

restoring to, as much as possible the original state of any impacted environment. 39. it is suggested that 

this idea maybe for reached, as the environment cannot be returned to full normalcy after pollution even 

though, it will take time and considerable amount of money to fit it. For water pollution, the guideline 

provides that, there shall be no visible oil seen within the first 30 days of the occurrence of the spill, no 

matter the extent of the spill and for swamps, there shall be no single stain the first 60 days of occurrence 

of the incidents. 40. The guidelines seem to be parallel with situations in Nigeria, as they are seemingly 

not spilled. There are situations when spillage in Nigeria will last for months without being cleaned by 

the pollutants. For example, it was reported 41 that SPDC has not always responded promptly in the 

clean-up, clamping or remediation of spilled crude. According to the legal advisory panel, the Inspection 

Report of Representative committee on public hearing dated 27th May, 2007, indicating that the 

committee discovered some oil spots yet to be cleaned by SPDC in Biseni. Also, the guideline 

emphasizes more on oil to the neglect of gas flaring. It is suggested that, the guideline be reviewed to 

reflect gas flaring instead of leaning more on oil spillage. Various laws concern the obligation of the 

explorer which create liabilities for them, when there is pollution caused by their act of oil and gas 

operation.  

 

Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1968  

The transportation of petroleum is essential in the oil industry, which necessitate the use of ships, 

railway lines by roads, (thus, the use of tankers). It is indeed in the process of transpiration that most 

spillages do occur. This was the circumstances in the Torrey Canyon Tanker off the coast of England 

in 1976 and the Santa Barbara California incident of 1969 which precipitated large oil spill pollution42. 

Also, oil spillage may occur at the refineries during the processing period which may include crude oil 

mixture containing oil effluences, mud or other fluid substances. 43 Criminal Liabilities under the 

Degree includes; 

a) Discharge of oil into prohibited sea area, see section 10(1), oil in navigable waters Act, 196844. 

                                                           
34See Supra at pp.88-89 
35See section 11(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the oil pipelines Act 
36See paragraph 4.01 Environmental Guidelines 
37See paragraph 4.01 Environmental Guidelines 
38See paragraph 8.1. Ibid 
39See Ibid 
40See Ibid, see generally Thisday, February 19, 2001, p.46 
41See News Watch, February, 20th 2006 ‘Niger Delta the $1.5Billion controversy p.25 
42See J.A. Omotola; ‘Environmental Laws in Nigeria including compensation’ quoted in ‘Critical Liability for Damages caused 

by oil pollution’ by A. Ibadapo-Obe p 234 
43See Regulations 25, Petroleum Drilling and Production/Regulations 
44 Now cap.06 LFN 2004 



ONYI-OGELLE & JARED: Justifying the Call for Regulating Compensation for Oil Spillage in the Niger 

Delta: A Legal Perspective 

Page | 110 
 

b) Discharge of oil into Nigeria waters45. 

c) Failure to install oil pollution prevention equipment on ships46. 

Failure to keep record of oil matters47. 

d) Harbour authority failing to provide oil reception facilities48. 

e) Failure to report presence of oil in harbor waters49. 

 

Harmful Waste (Special Criminal Provision, Etc) Act Now Cap H1 LFN 2004 

The harmful waste was defined in this Act as ‘any harmful wastes whether solid semi-solid or liquid’ 
50 Act and as injurious, poisonous toxic or noxious substance, and in particular includes nuclear wastes 

emitting radioactive substances if the waste is of such quality, whether with or without other assignment 

of the same or different substances as to subject any person to the risk of death, fatal injury or in 

incurable impairment of physical and mental health51. The Act also prohibits the carrying, dumping, 

depositing or causing to be carried, deposited or being in possession or any waste which is harmful. The 

penalty on conviction is life imprisonment, forfeiture of vessel and of land by or on which the harmful 

waste is dumped respectively. 

 

3. Conclusion and Recommendations 

The enforcement of the various environment legislations in Nigeria is bedeviled with so many problems, 

which involve balancing the divergent yet, connected with social and economic interests. For laws to 

be effective beneficial and enforced, they must be capable of being obeyed without causing any form 

of damage to the other areas or aspects on which the society stands. These considerations precipitates 

rise to more complex issues of the political economy and ideology of the society, they seek to regulate, 

and the contractions and conflicts which arise by their various nature. For instance, the courts for 

economic reasons have consistently refused to grant an injunction against any polluter for economic 

reasons.  The defence of sabotage in a civil cause or matter is immaterial sabotage should be made 

strictly a criminal offence, and should not be involve simply to deny innocent victims of their rights to 

compensation. Therefore, that the act of sabotage was done by an unknown party should not avail the 

operator of the liability to pay fair and adequate compensation. The person alleged to have committed 

the act should be an identifiable being and not just an imaginable person. Also, the requirement to prove 

or plead negligence under section 11 (5) (b) of Oil Pipelines Act in order to succeed in a compensation 

claim is not necessary. The polluter should be held liable for any pollution and that the issue of third-

party intervention should not arise.  

 

Section 6 (6) (b) and 286 of the Constitution confers general unlimited jurisdiction on the High court. 

Also, section 42 gave concurrent original jurisdiction to both the State High Court and Federal High 

Court on matters of interpretation of the fundamental rights provision in Chapter IV of the constitution 

by virtue of the definition of ‘court’ in section 277 (1) of the constitution to mean the Federal High 

Court or the High Court of a State. 52 Also, section 6(4), 11 (5) and 19 of the Oil Pipelines Act conferred 

jurisdiction on the Magistrate Courts and High Court of a State on matters of compensation. However, 

the enactment of the 1999 constitution seems to have changed the position stated above. Section 272 

(1) of the 1999 constitution has deleted the word ‘unlimited’ vis-à-vis jurisdiction as contained in 

section 236 (1) of the 1979 constitution. In the same vein, section 272 (1) of the 1999 constitution is 

now subject to the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court in section 251 (1) of the 

1999 constitution. 

 

The exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in matters pertaining to mines, minerals, oil fields 

and oil mining was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Shell Petroleum Development 

                                                           
45 Now cap.06 LFN 2004 
46See section 5(6) ibid 
47See section 7 Ibid 
48See section 8 (8) Ibid 
49See section 10 Ibid 
50See section 1 (3) harmful wastes (special criminal provision, etc 
51See section 13 Ibid 
52 See J.F Fekumo, the problem of Jurisdiction p.14 



ACARELAR 2 (2021) 

Page | 111  
 

Company of Nigeria Limited v. Abel Isaiah 53 and it was also judicially re-affirmed in plethora of cases. 
54 Shell Petroleum Development Co. of Nigeria Limited v. Otekmalba Maton 55. The decisions are sound 

in principle. The justices of the Supreme Court were up on their judicial Oath. But the judgment could 

be likened to an atomic bomb thrown on the helpless citizens of the oil-producing areas, particularly in 

the Niger Delta region. That day, Justice died. Since 1998, so many cases on compensation for oil and 

gas have been struck out for want of jurisdiction in the High Courts. Many are on the awaiting list, and 

so many of them have been withdrawn. More so, the oil companies do not help matters either, they are 

only interested to make ex gratia payments and not compensation, because of the enormous damage 

they too know that is being done to the inhabitation. No State has more than one Federal High Court, 

and the court is being located in the State Capital, far away from the victims. This is justice denied. 

Some victims do not have the filing fees in the Federal High Court are beyond the reach of the poor 

victims of oil and gas pollution. 56 It is submitted that, the above constitutional provisions need to be 

commended to achieve the noble aim of the law which is justice. 

 

The law should contain pragmatic measure which will ensure adequate compensation, for victims of oil 

pollution. Industrial development can only be effectively carried out if, there is intelligent government 

regulation and control. The Government in enacting such legislation should take into consideration the 

following; 

1) The need for victims of environment and industrial pollution to be fully and adequately 

compensated under a system based on strict liability. Such liability should be placed upon the 

exploiting companies because they are in good position to bear the risk as they are the ultimate 

beneficiaries as they made much profits. 

2) Compulsory insurance by such industries. This would ensure that victims of such pollution would 

be duly compensated. 

3) Compensation for pollution damages should be prompt and procedures for such damages should be 

simple and cheap. 

4) The main principle to be applied in arriving at the amount of compensation to be awarded in 

particular cases should be the need to ensure that the standard of the victim does not fall but rather 

improves. 

 

It is recommended that it will be proper to entertain matters relating to mines and minerals etc at the 

State High Court by way of enforcement of fundamental rights for compensation on the property 

compulsorily acquired by the state. By so doing, it will alleviate the injustice experienced by victims of 

oil producing states who suffers environmental degradation and other health hazards without hope of 

embracing justice, due to the institutionalized provisions of our various legislations or laws. The Lands 

Tribunals as established under the abolished Public Lands Acquisition (miscellaneous) Provisions) Act, 

1976 57 should be reviewed, and authority be vested on the tribunal to generally hear land compensation 

matters58. The laws made by the Federal Government in respect to compensation arising from oil and 

gas operations in Nigeria which include but limited to the Oil Pipelines Act, Petroleum Act, constitution 

of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended, Mining and Minerals Act, Land Use Act e.t.c, 

be harnessed together and a new law be enacted by the National Assembly which will address once and 

for all the bases of determining fair and adequate compensation to the environmental victims who 

suffers damage or injury arising from oil and gas operations in Nigeria. The Federal Government should 

establish special courts or tribunals in the Niger Delta region for environmental matters arising from oil 

and gas operations. There should be appointment of Judges that specialize on environmental matters 

into the environmental courts that will be so established. It is our humble view that such judges with 

environmental education, awareness and knowledge, will dispense environmental matters / litigations 

expeditiously and on its merits. Also, judges should be liberal on common law interpretation to avoid 

unnecessary rigidity to technicalities as was in the case Seismograph Services, Onakpasa 59, Oronto 

                                                           
53 See Supra 
54 See Bary v Eric (1998) 8NWLR (pt.562) 404 at p. 416 
55 (2000) FWLR (Pt.47), 1030 AT P.104 (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt. 719) 541) 
56 See J.F. Fekumo Supra 
57 See Act N0.33 of 1976, Section 12 
58 See J.F. Fekumo, op cit. pp.24-28 
59 See Supra 



ONYI-OGELLE & JARED: Justifying the Call for Regulating Compensation for Oil Spillage in the Niger 

Delta: A Legal Perspective 

Page | 112 
 

Douglas C SPDC 60 and SPDC Ltd. V. Enoch 61. There should be cross-fertilization of judicial ideas on 

environmental matters between Nigeria and the developed foreign jurisdiction. Non-government 

organization in the Niger Delta region should rise to the challenges of educating the public on the need 

to protect the environment in view of the importance of disturbance and injurious affections as heads 

of claim in compensation, to enable us arrive at what may be considered as fair and adequate 

compensation. It is recommended that, only the relevant provisions of the Oil Pipelines Act and the 

Petroleum Act should be relied on. With regard to gas flaring which have over the years impacted 

negatively on the Nigerian Environment and indeed globally, it is recommended that one quick outlet 

to the termination of gas flaring in Nigeria is the expansion of NLNG project in Nigeria, creating more 

gas fields and completing the proposed West African Gas Pipeline Projects. These developments will 

create new markets for the sale of the abundant gas in Nigeria and will generate a major source of 

revenue that could in no distant time strengthen the Nigeria currency and economy, while availing the 

teeming unemployed Youths with better employment opportunities. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                           
60 See Supra 
61 See 1992 8 NWLR (pt. 259) 335 


