Long-running cause celebre draws to an end at last

One of the controversies often cited as a key catalyst for the growth of corporate responsibility finally drew to a conclusion last month when the oil company Shell agreed an out of court settlement of $15.5million (£9.5m) relating to the Ken Saro-Wiwa case in Nigeria.

The case goes back to 1996, when Shell was sued under the Alien Tort Act in a US federal court by Ken Wiwa Jr, son of the late Ogoni activist Ken Saro-Wiwa who was executed in 1995. Other members of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (Mosop) also sued over alleged human rights abuses and environmental damage connected to Shell’s operations in Nigeria. The case became a cause celebre that  – along with the Brent Spar case, also involving Shell – helped to spark greater interest in CSR.  

In the 1990s, Mosop campaigned against the environmental harm caused by oil extraction in the Ogoni region of Nigeria and for increased autonomy for the Ogoni ethnic group. Ken Saro-Wiwa and other Mosop members were detained illegally in 1994, then tried by a military court using procedures in violation of international fair trial standards, convicted of murder and executed. The plaintiffs alleged that the Nigerian military government and security forces committed human rights violations to suppress Mosop’s activities and that Shell was complicit in the commission of these abuses.

Though Shell still ‘utterly denies’ any involvement in the alleged crimes, it said it preferred  to settle and use the money  to establish a trust to benefit the Ogoni people and cover a portion of the plaintiffs’ legal costs. ‘While we were prepared to go to court to clear our name, we believe the right way forward is to focus on the future for Ogoni people,’ it said.

Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr said the ‘landmark’ case had contributed to a reassessment of how companies should behave. ‘Multinationals now know that a precedent has been set, and that it is possible to be sued for human rights violations in foreign jurisdictions,’ he said. ‘In the end we collectively agreed to settle because [it] ... provided for a contribution towards future development of our community.’