Résumé du procès Shell (Nigeria - Kiobel & Wiwa)

For an English-language version of this case profile, please click here.

Para la versión en español de este perfil de las demandas judiciales contra Shell por actividades en Nigeria, haga clic acá.

如欲阅读中文版,请点击此处。

  1. Procédure aux Etats-Unis
  2. Procédure aux Pays-Bas

Kiobel contre Shell

Nigerian Soldier, By SSGT Paul R. Caron, USAF [Public domain], via Wikimedia_CommonsProcédure aux Etats-Unis

En 2002, Royal Dutch/Shell a été poursuivie devant un tribunal fédéral américain par Esther Kiobel, l'épouse du Dr Barinem Kiobel, un militant Ogoni, membre du Mouvement pour la survie du peuple Ogoni (MOSOP), et onze autres Nigérians de la région de l'Ogoni. Le MOSOP a mené une campagne contre la catastrophe environnementale causée par l’extraction pétrolière dans la région de l’Ogoni au Nigeria, et pour davantage d’autonomie pour le groupe ethnique Ogoni. Barinem Kiobel et d’autres membres du MOSOP ont été arbitrairement détenus en 1994, placés au secret sous garde militaire avant d’être jugés par un tribunal spécial établi par le gouvernement militaire selon des procédures allant à l’encontre des normes internationales d’équité des procès. Ils furent jugés coupables de meurtre puis exécutés. L'action en justice repose sur l'allégation selon laquelle Shell, à travers sa filiale nigériane Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC), aurait assisté l’armée nigériane en lui fournissant des moyens de transport, en lui permettant d’utiliser les propriétés de la société comme aire de transit, en approvisionnant les militaires en nourriture et en leur versant des allocations. Les plaignants accusaient les sociétés défenderesses d’avoir été complices d’actes de torture, d’exécutions extrajudiciaires et d’autres violations en vertu de l’Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), la loi sur les délits civils contre les étrangers.

En mars 2008, la cour fédérale a opposé aux défendeurs une fin de non-recevoir pour défaut de compétence personnelle. Le 16 novembre 2009, les plaignants ont déposé une requête demandant le réexamen de la question de la compétence. Selon la cour, une relation commerciale directe devait être établie entre les Etats-Unis et la SPDC pour que l’ATCA s’applique. Le 21 juin 2010, la cour fédérale a conclu que les plaignants n’avaient pas démontré l’existence de cette relation commerciale directe, et le juge a rejeté l’action en justice contre la SPDC. Les plaignants ont interjeté appel. Le 17 septembre 2010, la cour d’appel, dans une décision radicale concernant les procès basés sur l’ATCA contre des entreprises multinationales, a émis une opinion majoritaire confirmant le rejet par le tribunal inférieur de l’action en justice, et a également déclaré que l’ATCA ne pouvait pas être utilisé pour poursuivre des multinationales pour des violations du droit international. Le troisième juge de la cour d’appel a émis une opinion individuelle qui n’était d’accord avec la majorité qu’à propos du jugement. Ce juge a vigoureusement désapprouvé le raisonnement de la majorité; il a en effet écrit que l’opinion de la majorité a porté un « rude coup au droit international qui a pour but de protéger les droits humains fondamentaux. » Le 14 octobre 2010, les plaignants ont déposé une requête pour une nouvelle audience et une audience en banc devant la cour. Le 4 février 2011, la cour d’appel a rejeté cette demande. Les plaignants ont introduit un pourvoi devant la Cour suprême en juin 2011, lui demandant d'entendre un appel du jugement du tribunal inférieur. Le 17 octobre 2011, la Cour suprême a annoncé qu’elle allait entendre l’affaire et les audiences ont eu lieu le 28 février 2012. Le 5 mars, la Cour suprême reporta son examen de l'affaire et demanda aux parties de soumettre des arguments supplémentaires en vue de déterminer si l’Alien Tort Claims Act peut s'appliquer à des événements survenus en dehors des Etats-Unis. La cour a réentendu l’affaire le 1er octobre 2012.  Le 17 avril 2013, la Cour suprême a rendu sa décision; elle a conclu que l’ATCA ne s’applique pas hors du territoire des Etats-Unis.  La Cour suprême a donc affirmé le rejet de l’action en justice. Une page spéciale contenant tous les documents (en anglais) relatifs à l’examen par la Cour suprême des Etats-Unis de cette affaire est accessible ici.

- "Companies Shielded as U.S. Court Cuts Human-Rights Suits", Greg Stohr, Bloomberg, 17 Apr 2013
- "Views on Kiobel v. Shell", Salil Tripathi, Institute for Human Rights and Business, 9 Oct 2012
- "Alien torts in America's courts", Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 8 Oct 2012
- "Shell, Corporate Responsibility and Respect for the Law", Amol Mehra & Katie Shay, International Corporate Accountability Roundtable, 3 Oct 2012
- "Argument recap: In search of an [Alien Tort Statute] compromise", Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog, 1 Oct 2012
- "Supreme Court may narrow law in human rights cases", Jonathan Stempel, Reuters, 1 Oct 2012
- "The U.S. Supreme Court must preserve the Alien Tort Statute for international corporate human rights cases", Marco Simons, EarthRights International, 13 Jun 2012
- "Torture Suits Against Companies Including Shell Draw U.S. High Court Review", Greg Stohr, Bloomberg, 17 Oct 2011
- "US court upholds key Shell ruling in Nigeria case", Jonathan Stempel, Reuters, 4 Feb 2011
- "2nd Circuit Rejects Corporate Liability in Alien Tort Cases", Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal, 20 Sep 2010
- “Nigeria Torture Case Decision Exempts Companies From U.S. Alien Tort Law”, Bob Van Voris & Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg, 17 Sep 2010
- “Judge Kimba Wood Dismisses Defendant from Aliant Tort Statute Class Action for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction”, Russell Jackson, Jackson on Consumer Class Actions & Mass Torts, 25 Jun 2010

Esther Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company et al.
- [PDF] Opinion of US Supreme Court, 17 Apr 2013
- Petitioners/plaintiffs (Kiobel) - Supplemental Reply Brief, 31 Aug 2012
- Respondents/defendants (Shell) - Supplemental Brief, 1 Aug 2012
- [PDF] Supplemental brief for petitioners/plaintiffs (Kiobel), 6 Jun 2012
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum - Brief for Respondents, 27 Jan 2012
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum - Brief for Petitioners, 14 Dec 2011
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum - Petition for Writ of Certiorari, 6 Jun 2011
- US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, et al., 4 Feb 2011 [order denying plaintiffs' petition for rehearing]
- [PDF] Petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc for Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, 14 Oct 2010
- US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: [PDF] Order affirming District Court’s dismissal of lawsuit, 17 Sep 2010
- US District Court for the Southern District of New York: [PDF] Opinion and Order [regarding 2008 motion to dismiss], 21 Jun 2010
- Opinion and Order re Plainitffs' motion for reconsideration, 16 Nov 2009
Opinion and Order, 25 Jun 2009

- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Co., et al. - Brief for the United States as amicus curiae supporting petitioners, 21 Dec 2011
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Co., et al. - Brief of Former US Senator Arlen Specter, Human Rights First, and the Anti-Defamation League as amici curiae in support of petitioners, 21 Dec 2011
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Co., et al. - Brief of Earth Rights Intl. as amicus curiae supporting petitioners, 21 Dec 2011

Procédure aux Pays-Bas

En octobre 2016, Esther Kiobel a déposé une demande aux Etats-Unis au titre de l'Assistance Juridique Etrangère pour accéder aux documents détenus par les avocats de Shell, en préparation de l'action en justice qu'elle envisage d'intenter auprès d'un tribunal néerlandais. Le 24 janvier, le cabinet d'avocats qui détient les documents a reçu l'ordre de les remettre. Le 13 février, il a fait appel de la décision au motif que les cabinets d'avocats américains seront submergés de requêtes de ce genre si celle-ci faisait jurisprudence.

En juin 2017, Ether Kiobel et trois autres veuves ont intenté une action civile aux Pays-Bas contre Shell. Elles accusent l'entreprise d'avoir été complice de l'exécution de leurs maris en 1995.  Ils faisaient parti d'un groupe d'activistes qui contestaient les activités de Shell et l'action du gouvernment sur les effets de la pollution. Shell rejette avoir été impliqué dans leur exécution.


Wiwa contre Shell

Ken Wiwa (fils du défunt militant Ogoni Ken Saro-Wiwa qui fut exécuté en même temps que Barinem Kiobel en 1995) et d'autres membres du MOSOP avaient déposé une première plainte en 1996. Wiwa avait intenté une action en justice contre les mêmes sociétés défenderesses que celles citées dans l'affaire Kiobel. Dans ce procès, le gouvernement militaire nigérian et les forces de sécurité étaient accusés d'avoir commis des violations des droits de l'homme, notamment des actes de torture et l'exécution sommaire de membres du MOSOP dans le but de mettre fin à leurs activités et la société Royal Dutch/Shell accusée de s’être rendue complice de ces exactions. Plusieurs décisions préalables au procès ont été rendues en faveur des plaignants, notamment relatives aux recours en annulation déposés par les défendeurs.

Au début du mois de juin 2009, les parties ont annoncé qu'elles avaient conclu un accord pour un règlement à l'amiable portant sur un montant de 15,5 millions de dollars. Le règlement constitue un dédommagement pour les dix plaignants et couvre une partie des frais de justice de ces derniers. Dans le cadre de ce règlement, un fonds dénommé « Kiisi Trust », géré par des fiduciaires indépendants, a été mis en place au bénéfice du peuple Ogoni. Ce fonds est destiné à financer des projets dans la région de l'Ogoni notamment dans le domaine de l'éducation, de l'alphabétisation des adultes, des programmes pour les femmes et un soutien aux petites entreprises.

- “Shell settles human rights suit for $15.5M”, Chris Kahn, Associated Press, 8 Jun 2009
- [video] Shell in court over alleged Nigeria crimes, Al Jazeera English, 3 Jun 2009
- "Shell must defend Nigerian rights suit, judge says", David Glovin, Bloomberg, 23 Apr 2009
- “Shell Faces Human Rights Grilling”, Tim Webb, Independent [UK], 11 Apr 2004
- “Big Oil and an Activist's Death: Family Sues to Probe Role Played by Shell in Nigerian's Execution”, Elizabeth Neuffer, Boston Globe, 03 Jun 2001

- Shell:
 - Shell in Nigeria: Issues
 - Shell settles Wiwa case with humanitarian gesture, 8 Jun 2009

- [PDF] Statement of the Plaintiffs in Wiwa v. Royal Dutch/Shell, Wiwa v. Anderson, and Wiwa v. SPDC, Lucky Doobee, Monday Gbokoo, David Kiobel, Karalolo Kogbara, Blessing Kpuinen, James N-nah, Friday Nuate, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Jr., Michael Vizor, Owens Wiwa, 8 Jun 2009
- [PDF] Statement of Plaintiffs' Attorneys in Wiwa v. Royal Dutch/Shell, Wiwa v. Anderson, and Wiwa v. SPDC, 8 Jun 2009

- EarthRights International (NGO representing plaintiffs): Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell) [includes links to court opinions and plaintiffs’ complaints filed in this case]

- Center for Constitutional Rights (NGO representing plaintiffs):
 - Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum [synopsis]
 - [PDF] On Eve of Trial, Settlement Agreements Provide $15.5 Million for Compensation to Nigerian Human Rights Activists and to Establish Trust Fund, 8 Jun 2009

- The Case Against Shell [joint project of EarthRights International and Center for Constitutional Rights]: Wiwa v. Shell

- US Circuit Court for the Second Circuit:
- [PDF] Wiwa v. Shell, 14 Sep 2000 [reversal of lower court’s dismissal of the case]

- US District Court for the Southern District of New York:
- [PDF] Wiwa v Shell – Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, 8 Jun 2009
- [PDF] Wiwa v. Shell - Denial of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, 23 Apr 2009
- [PDF] Wiwa v. Shell – Dismissal of RICO claims against defendants, 18 Mar 2009

 

Souscrire au flux RSS de cette rubrique

Tous les éléments de cette histoire

Article
+ English - Cacher

Auteur: John M. Eubanks, Motley Rice LLC (Petitioners’ Counsel in Jesner v. Arab Bank)

Imagine a situation where an international bank with a presence in Manhattan holds accounts for known terrorists and serves as the end-payor to beneficiaries of a fund created for the explicit purpose of supporting an armed uprising typified by suicide bombings and indiscriminate killing of civilians carried out by known terrorist organizations with whom the bank’s accountholders are directly affiliated. Then, picture this international bank being immune from lawsuits filed by the victims of these suicide bombings and indiscriminate killings solely on the basis of its corporate form. This is precisely the issue with which the Supreme Court will grapple in Jesner v. Arab Bank, to be argued before the Court on October 11, 2017. 

Jesner addresses the same question that was raised in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. during the October Term 2011. That question is whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), creates a categorical bar to corporate liability for violations of the law of nations, or customary international law…

…The language of the ATS does not explicitly exempt corporations. In fact, the text of the statute…specifically lays out who can sue (“an alien”), but it provides no limitation for who can be sued.

…[W]here a corporation engages in conduct that it knows will facilitate violations of the law of nations such as terrorism, crimes against humanity, or even genocide, can that corporation be held liable under the ATS to the victims of those violations? The answer is a simple “yes” based on the statutory text and common law’s interpretation of tort liability, and it is up to the Supreme Court to make this determination.

Tout lire

Article
+ English - Cacher

Auteur: John F. Sherman III, Shift, on Clarion

[Article starts p. 12]

…[I]n Jesner, the petitioners, who are victims of terrorist bombings and attacks, are suing the respondent Arab Bank, a multinational corporation based in Jordan, under the ATS. A jury found that the bank had knowingly used its New York branch as a clearinghouse to facilitate the financing of such actions…

The District Court ultimately overturned the verdict and dismissed the claim on the ground that corporations are not subject to suit under the ATS. The Second Circuit affirmed…

…[T]he Guiding Principles remain highly relevant in Jesner. First, their background and content show that international law does not preclude corporate responsibility for violations of human rights. Second, their widespread uptake helps to show that the existence of potential ATS liability benefits businesses abroad much more than it burdens them…

 

Télécharger le document

Article
+ English - Cacher

Auteur: William Dodge, University of California, on Just Security

On October 11, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC on the question whether corporations can be sued for human rights violations under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). This will be the second time the question of corporate liability has come before the Court. In 2011, the Supreme Court granted cert to consider the same question in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., but after oral argument the Court asked for additional briefing on the geographic scope of the ATS cause of action. Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the claims in Kiobel on the ground that they did not “touch and concern” the United States with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality. The Court did not reach the question of corporate liability under the ATS, leaving the Second Circuit’s categorical rule against such liability intact...

The arguments in Jesner fall into three groups:

1) whether customary international law permits corporate liability;

2) whether, as a matter of U.S. domestic law, the ATS cause of action should be interpreted to permit corporate liability;

3) whether the case against Arab Bank should be dismissed on some other ground...

Tout lire

Article
11 September 2017

Une cour américaine va examiner l’appel des avocats de Shell contre une décision les obligeant à transmettre des documents internes pour le procès aux Pays-Bas qui allègue la complicité de l’entreprise dans l’exécution d’activistes Nigérians

Auteur: Amnesty International France

États-Unis. Le cabinet d'avocats de Shell refuse de transmettre des éléments essentiels dans l'affaire des « neuf Ogonis »; 10 septembre 2017

Le cabinet d'avocats américain de Shell refuse de remettre plus de 100 000 documents internes essentiels à une procédure judiciaire intentée aux Pays-Bas, dans laquelle le géant pétrolier est accusé de complicité dans l'arrestation, la détention et l'exécution illégales de neuf hommes au Nigeria dans les années 1990…

Au terme d'une bataille de 20 années pour obtenir justice, le 28 juin, quatre des veuves de ces hommes, emmenées par Esther Kiobel, ont intenté une action en justice contre Shell aux Pays-Bas. Shell tente d'empêcher la transmission d'informations cruciales dans cette affaire.

Le 12 septembre, la cour fédérale d'appel du deuxième circuit à New York examinera le premier appel déposé par Cravath, Swaine  & Moore, LLP, le cabinet d’avocats de Shell, contre l'injonction d’une cour fédérale de remettre les documents.

« Shell se donne beaucoup de mal pour ne pas divulguer ces informations essentielles. Les documents en question étant très anciens, il est peu probable qu'il existe des motifs commerciaux légitimes pour les garder confidentiels. Alors, qu’est-ce que Shell cherche à cacher ?, a déclaré Audrey Gaughran, directrice générale chargée des recherches à Amnesty International.

Le 24 janvier 2017, une cour fédérale de district de New York a ordonné à Cravath de lui remettre les documents…

Tout lire

Article
+ English - Cacher

Auteur: Miriam Rozen, American Lawyer

Amnesty International has zeroed in on Cravath, Swaine & Moore, claiming in a Sept. 8 release that the New York firm is refusing to hand over "critical" evidence in long-running litigation against the oil giant Royal Dutch Shell…

Kiobel is now looking to the Dutch courts. And for that, she wants documents—in the possession of Shell's former lawyers at Cravath—related to her unsuccessful case in the United States.

In January, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York in Manhattan ordered Cravath to give Kiobel the requested documents, which previously had been placed under protective order…

Cravath challenged Hellerstein's ruling, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is scheduled to hear the appeal on Sept. 12…

"Suing a U.S. law firm should not be a back door to secure documents from foreign clients, who are outside of U.S. jurisdictional boundaries," Haslam [who is Shell’s spokesperson] wrote in an email…

Backing Cravath in friend of the court briefs are the New York City Bar Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Association of Corporate Counsel, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce…

The Chamber of Commerce, Association of Corporate Counsel and National Association of Manufacturers…argue that the ruling harms the U.S. discovery regime. "The clear message of the district court's decision is not only that protective orders are not protective, but also that a litigant who places faith in a protective order may suffer for its misplaced reliance decades later. By allowing such ready—and calamitous—circumvention, the district court's decision will undermine confidence in the protective orders that are the lifeblood of discovery."

Not surprisingly, Kiobel's lawyer, Marco Simons of the nonprofit EarthRights International, disagrees.

"None of this material is privileged. The only materials at issue were previously produced in discovery," Simons said…

Tout lire

Article
+ English - Cacher

Auteur: Cletus Ukpong, Premium Times (Nigeria)

The civil suit filed against Shell in the Netherlands for its alleged complicity in the killing of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni activists by the Nigerian government has taken an interesting turn, as lawyers to the oil giant are being accused of refusing to hand over evidence said to be critical to the case.

The nine men, popularly referred to as ‘Ogoni Nine’ were executed in 1995 by Nigeria’s military regime under controversial circumstances.

The widows of four of the men, led by Esther Kiobel, are the plaintiffs in the case which was first filed in 2001 in the U.S.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2013, without hearing the substance of the case, had ruled that the U.S. did not have jurisdiction.

The widows filed the lawsuit in the Netherlands on June 28...

mnesty International directly accused Shell of trying to prevent the release of vital information.

Shell’s lawyers, according to the NGO, have appealed against the judgment of a U.S. federal court which ordered Shell to turn over the documents...

Shell has denied complicity in the killing of the Ogoni Nine...

Tout lire

Article
+ English - Cacher

Auteur: Amnesty International USA

Shell’s US law firm is refusing to hand over more than 100,000 internal documents crucial to a legal case in the Netherlands which is alleging the oil giant’s complicity in the unlawful arrest, detention and execution of nine men in Nigeria in the 1990s...

After a 20-year battle for justice, on June 28, four of the men’s widows, led by Esther Kiobel, filed a legal writ against Shell in the Netherlands. Shell is trying to prevent the release of information vital to the case.

On September 12, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York will hear the first appeal by Shell’s lawyers Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP against a federal court order to turn over the documents.

“Shell has gone to extraordinary lengths to withhold this critical information. Because the documents in question are so old, it is highly unlikely that there are legitimate business reasons for keeping them confidential. So what does Shell have to hide?” said Audrey Gaughran, Senior Director of Research at Amnesty International...

On January 24, 2017, a New York district court ordered Cravath to turn over the documents.

Tout lire

Article
+ English - Cacher

Auteur: Rebecca Ratcliffe, The Guardian (UK)

"Ogoni widows file civil writ accusing Shell of complicity in Nigeria killings", 29 June 2017

The widows of men who were hanged by Nigeria’s military government in the 1990s have launched a civil case against Shell, accusing it of complicity in their husbands’ executions. Esther Kiobel, the widow of Dr Barinem Kiobel, and three other women whose husbands were hanged in 1995, served a writ in a Dutch court this week, following a 20-year battle with the oil giant. Kiobel’s husband was executed along with the writer and human rights activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, and seven other men, who became collectively known as the Ogoni nine. They were hanged in a military court following a peaceful uprising by 300,000 Ogonis against Shell’s widespread pollution in Ogoniland...Amnesty International, which has supported Kiobel’s legal team, has accused Shell of complicity in the state executions. Shell has branded the allegations “false and without merit”...In a briefing published on Thursday, Amnesty alleges that Shell encouraged security forces and military authorities to stop the protests, even though the company knew this would lead to human rights violations....In a statement, Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited said: “We have always denied, in the strongest possible terms, the allegations made by the plaintiffs in this tragic case...“SPDC has not had an opportunity to review the full report produced by Amnesty International but, based on a summary of its findings made available to us, the Amnesty allegations against Royal Dutch Shell and SPDC are false and without merit...

Tout lire

Article
+ English - Cacher

Auteur: Amnesty International

Oil giant Shell stands accused of complicity in the unlawful arrest, detention and execution of nine men who were hanged by Nigeria’s military government in the 1990s…following the launch of an explosive new case against the company in the Netherlands over four of the executions.

The civil case has been brought by Esther Kiobel… and three other women….Esther Kiobel [also] accuses Shell of… the violation of [her executed husband’s] personal integrity; the violation of his right to a fair trial and his right to life, and her own right to a family life…

The claimants are demanding damages for harm caused by Shell’s unlawful actions, and a public apology for the role that Shell played…

Shell Nigeria stated that: “The allegations cited in your letter against [Shell] are false and without merit.  [Shell Nigeria] did not collude with the military authorities to supress community unrest and in no way encouraged or advocated any act of violence in Nigeria….We have always denied these allegations in the strongest possible terms.”…

Esther Kiobel first filed a case against Shell in New York in 2002, but in 2013 the US Supreme Court ruled that the US did not have jurisdiction, without hearing the substance of the case

In the 1990s Shell in Nigeria was a wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Dutch/Shell (they later merged), and its operations were overseen by a management structure known as the Committee of Managing Directors (CMD) based in Europe.

Tout lire

Article
+ English - Cacher

Auteur: Oladeinde Olawoyin, Premium Times (Nigeria)

The widows of four of nine men executed by Nigeria's military regime in 1995 have filed a civil lawsuit seeking compensation and an apology from Royal Dutch Shell…

According to a writ filed in a court in The Hague, the widows are seeking compensation from the company for alleged complicity in a military crackdown, leading to the deaths of their husbands…

But Shell, the largest oil producer in Nigeria, has repeatedly denied any involvement in the executions or the government's response to the unrest.

A statement by the multinational said....

"SPDC (Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria) did not collude with the authorities to suppress community unrest and in no way encouraged or advocated any act of violence in Nigeria. In fact, the company believes that dialogue is the best way to resolve disputes."…

"Shell and the military regime formed an alliance in the events leading to the deaths of the Ogoni 9," the writ [filed by the claimants] said.

"Their relationship was one of mutual dependence: the Nigerian state was dependent on the income from oil that Shell generated; in turn, Shell was dependent on the benevolence and protection of the regime to pursue its activities in Nigeria and in this way realise a substantial part of its turnover."...

Tout lire