Multinational oil companies (MNOCs) usually claim that they have several obligations to protect human rights and the environment where they operate and to resolve any disputes with local communities arising from their operations in the shortest possible time. However, the combative approach taken by MNOCs (e.g. several interlocutory appeals, challenging the legal standing of plaintiffs) during human rights and environmental litigations undermines these obligations because it continually denies, delays, and derails justice for the local communities. The aim of this paper is to discuss the mechanisms used by MNOCs to derail human rights and environmental litigations arising from the Niger Delta. This paper uses a comparative legal approach combined with a cross-case analysis of a selection of transnational litigations to highlight several mechanisms that fall into eight (8) categories related to oil operations – transparency, disclosure, bribery and corruption, labour/employee rights, safety and security, delays in litigations, pollution, remediation and compensation. The paper concludes that mechanisms used by MNOCs (e.g., Shell), as indicated in recent ligations arising from the Niger Delta, are at odds with their human rights obligations, thus affecting effective remedies for the people whose human rights have allegedly been affected by corporate conduct.

No abstract