Oil Major Chevron in the Spotlight as Nigerian Negligence Trial Reaches Climax

Background

In May 1998, a group of over 100 Nigerian villagers occupied Chevron’s offshore Parabe oil platform in the Niger Delta. Some members of the Ilaje community, which resides mostly in the swamplands and river areas of south-western Ondo State, decided to conduct a peaceful demonstration at the Parabe platform, in a protest against the pollution caused by the company’s operations. Even prior to the staged protest, Chevron admits that it received letters from local inhabitants complaining about the effects of pollution—often caused by gas flaring which kills fish, greatly affecting the local economy—and the lack of job opportunities. The May protest was at the apogee of politically-motivated activism in the Niger Delta, three years after the execution of environmentalist and author Ken Saro Wiwa, who promoted the rights of the Ogoni people in the Niger Delta. This developed into a much wider campaign by Niger Delta inhabitants to bring oil companies to account and to apply pressure on the government to ensure a greater distribution of oil-generated wealth among the inhabitants of oil-rich, yet poverty-stricken areas. The incident which could cast Chevron in an unfavourable light, occurred on 28 May and brought an end to the three-day occupation of the platform and construction barge, situated some nine miles offshore. Soldiers and police were transported to the platform by helicopters, with clashes between the security forces and villagers resulting in the deaths of two protestors and the injury of many others. The case is being brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act, dating back to 1789, which gives foreign claimants the legal right to bring a claim over human rights violations committed in their countries. Over 20 Nigerian villagers have been taken to San Francisco to testify, and the claimants are seeking to recover damages for a breach of human rights, including torture and cruel treatment, as well as damages for negligence, wrongful death, and assault.

The Claims

The claimants maintain that disproportionate force was used against the protestors. The troops, including the mobile police unit nicknamed "kill and go", are said to have been "transported, paid, fed, housed and supervised by Chevron", the lawyer for the claimants, Dan Stormer told the U.S. District Court jury. The claimants' legal argument is based upon charges of negligence. They maintain that Chevron was careless in calling in the security forces—particularly the notoriously brutal mobile police unit—to remove the protestors from the oil barge while negotiations were still ongoing. The fact that the company paid the salaries, housing, and helicopter transportation of the troops translates into vicarious responsibility by Chevron, according to the claimants. In his closing argument, plaintiff lawyer Stormer told the courtroom: "They don't want to be held accountable now but you, through our system of justice, get to hold them accountable," Reuters reports.

The Defence

Chevron vehemently denies that the protest was peaceful. The company’s lawyer, Robert Mittelstaedt said that the occupation of the barge amounted to an "illegal invasion" and that the company was forced to call upon the security forces to protect company workers. He added that "nobody would have got hurt but for some of the Ilaje (villagers) attacking the rescuers", The San Francisco Chronicle reports. According to the oil major, the occupiers were behaving in a threatening manner and in their inebriated state, were brandishing knives. Mittelstaedt maintains that the company had a duty of care to protect its workers and that in calling the security forces—that is what the company was doing. In his closing remarks, Mittelstaedt underscored that "hostage takers don't have any right to determine how long they hold hostages before the police are called." The company does not deny that they paid security forces extra to guard its facilities, saying that it was normal to do so, as well as to provide them with food and housing, given the remote location of the installations.

Outlook and Implications

This case is being hailed as a flagship lawsuit. Invoking the Alien Tort Statute creates corporate accountability for U.S. companies operating abroad. It also demonstrates the use of charges of vicarious responsibility of parent companies for the wrongdoing of their subsidiaries and highlights the fact that human rights abuses will not be taken lightly. The jury has been sent away to deliberate for a number of days, but it is unclear as to when it will return with its verdict. If the jury finds that Chevron was indeed negligent in knowingly contacting security forces notorious for applying disproportionate force, this could set an uncomfortable precedent for Chevron and other multinationals operating in Nigeria. Conversely however, it could not be considered a triumph for the local community.