Ken Saro Wiwa

Letter from Abuja from Our Own Correspondent

SHELL AND THE UK SPOOKS

NEW documents have emerged showing the British government and Shell colluded with senior figures in the Nigerian military junta against activist Ken Saro-Wiwa in the early 1990s. Secret papers show intelligence collusion between the British high commission and Shell, and between Shell and our former dictator Sani Abacha.

At the time Saro-Wiwa was leading a campaign against the environmental devastation of Ogoniland and for a greater share of oil wealth. By 1994, the Ogoni people were suffering a violent military backlash and called for international help. Your Anita Roddick, founder of the Body Shop, tried to set up a fact-finding tour. In April 1994, the British high commission here secretly wrote to Shell informing it that Body Shop “will not get their way”. Later that month the commission again passed information to Shell, saying visas for the visit had been refused.

‘Requisite intelligence’

A month later, four Ogoni elders were murdered, the crime for which Saro-Wiwa would later be tried and hanged in what was widely condemned as a sham trial. The day before the murders, Brian Anderson, head of Shell here in Nigeria, told colleagues in London he had tried to get Abacha on the phone to talk about the Ogoni issue. Anderson, who had Abacha’s two private telephone numbers, said: “I think it is important that we are seen by him to be assisting the state by giving him the requisite intelligence as it comes to us… it is a delicate issue and needs to be carefully handled.”

Just weeks after Saro-Wiwa’s arrest, Anderson noted: “I saw the British high commissioner and also his man from Abuja and we discussed the Ogoni issue. Reports from their intelligence support the view that the Ogoni leaders were brutally murdered by Ken Saro-Wiwa’s militant MOSOP youth wing. They believe that the government has good reason to arrest him and those who may have been involved… It shows the sort of actions that this so-called peace-loving man is capable of.”

Later that month, the British high commissioner over here, Thorold Masefield, and his wife accompanied Anderson on a two-day tour of the Niger Delta. Anderson noted: “This went well, and I believe that he was happy with what he learnt. He is prepared to assist us in dealing with the government on economic and the Ogoni issues.” Elsewhere in the document, Anderson wrote: “I am in touch with the British Secret Service representative in Lagos. He has agreed to keep me informed of any developments that might be of interest to Shell.”

‘Quiet diplomacy’

Shell, meanwhile, met the Nigerian ambassador back in London, who complained “about the Body Shop and their activities among the more militant NGOs”. The ambassador offered to help Shell in its anti-Ogoni propaganda film (see Eye 1143) if Shell “encountered any difficulties” with permits, and offered to “use his influence” to sort things out. He told Shell there was “every chance that [Saro-Wiwa] would be found guilty”.

The British continued to keep Shell informed of their intelligence, which changed by early 1995 to thinking Saro-Wiwa was innocent. In April, some seven months before Saro-Wiwa’s execution, Anderson wrote: “The British high commissioner believes that although the charges should not stick the government will make sure he is found guilty. He would be then sentenced to death, and reprieved after giving in to pressure from outside, but be incarcerated for a very long time.”

Shell and the British continued to push for “quiet diplomacy”, a stance many believed contributed to Saro-Wiwa being hanged in November 1995 to international outrage. Your then PM John Major called it “judicial murder”. Maybe he should have looked at what his own spooks had been doing to see if he too had blood on his hands.

SOURCE ARTICLE

The implications of the settlement of damage claims against Shell, based on the allegation that it was complicit in the executions of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the other “Ogoni 9″ in 1995, as well as numerous other human rights violations, has been underestimated…

By Rebekah Kebede - Analysis

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Royal Dutch Shell’s (RDSa.L) cash payment of $15.5 million — roughly four hours of its 2008 profits — to settle a human rights case in Nigeria may not be enough to change Big Oil’s policies in the developing world.

A better incentive may be a desire to avoid the high legal costs and the bad publicity from the 13-year case accusing Shell of abuses in the Niger Delta region.

The suit involved incidents including the 1995 hangings of author and environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other protesters by Nigeria’s then-military government.

Shell admitted no wrongdoing as part of the settlement. But experts said Big Oil will note the lengthy legal feud that kept international spotlight trained on the oil major as an alleged accomplice in human rights abuses.

Oil companies have a long track record of being accused of human rights and environmental abuses in developing nations like Nigeria,Sudan, Ecuador, Peru and others.

“Many times the most important things about (these claims) is to keep alive the case and keep it focused before the public and before the courts,” said Peter Rosenblum, a professor in human rights law at Columbia University in New York.

The case, settled before it was to go to trial at the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, was brought by victims’ families and the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights.

Shell insists the charges were untrue and says the evidence would have supported this. It called the settlement a “humanitarian” gesture.

Chevron Corp (CVX.N) was accused of similar violations in Nigeria, but was cleared by a San Francisco court. A case currently being brought against Occidental Petroleum (OXY.N) for its operations in Peru alleges that the company’s oil production damaged the health of nearby communities.

TOKEN GESTURE

Shell’s critics said the settlement is a token gesture amounting to about half a percent of Shell’s record $31.4 billion profit in 2008.

Rosenblum said legal fees and public relations costs for the 13-year case probably far exceeded the settlement sum and Shell likely wanted to end the “beating” its reputation took in connection with the accusations.

After the suit was launched, Shell increased involvement in development activities in the Niger Delta, including partnering with local non-profits and providing micro-credit loans, experts said.

Shell also signed on to the United Nations Global Compact, a voluntary set of standards on human rights, environmental standards, labor and anti-corruption.

Other companies have taken similar steps in response to human rights and environmental scandals. 

Talisman Energy Inc (TLM.TO) sold its interests in Sudan’s largest oil field in 2003 after a suit accused it of giving the government resources to fuel the protracted civil war.

Talisman’s chief executive has since said it will not operate in regions where it does not have the support of the local community. Prior to the accusations, the company had already adopted the UN Global Compact, and funded schools, hospitals and other social programs in southern Sudan.

“Given the recent number of high-profile lawsuits targeting the oil industry, it’s highly likely that the companies will not only pay attention to the public relations implications but also, indeed, continue to adopt practices that meet international standards for human rights and environmental protection,” said Matthew Chen, a researcher at the Baker Institute at Rice University.

Among oil giants, BP Plc (BP.L) and Total SA (TOTF.PA) are participants in the Global Compact, although Chevron Corp (CVX.N), ConocoPhillips (COP.N) and Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) are not.

(Additional reporting by Jeff Jones in Calgary and Braden Reddall in San Francisco; Editing by Matthew Robinson and David Gregorio)

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

REUTERS ARTICLE

FAMILY members of three Nigerian Ogoni minority activists executed in 1995 say they have been excluded from a $A19.5 million settlement reached with Royal Dutch Shell.

Documents seen by The IoS support claims energy giant enlisted help of country’s military government

By Andy Rowell

  

AP

Ogoni supporters protesting in New York last month, shortly before Shell agreed a $15.5m settlement in their case

Spilling over

Jun 11th 2009 | LAGOS
From The Economist print edition

A payout could encourage others

ON JUNE 8th Royal Dutch Shell agreed to pay out $15.5m to the Ogoni people of the Niger Delta to settle a long-running court case brought against the oil giant in America by nine plaintiffs, including relatives of Ken Saro-Wiwa, an environmentalist and writer. He was executed by the brutal government of General Sani Abacha after a charade of a trial in 1995. Mr Saro-Wiwa had led a successful campaign against Shell’s activities in his homeland, even forcing the company to quit Ogoniland in 1993. The plaintiffs accused Shell of complicity in the activist’s death.

Shell denies any wrongdoing. It says the payout was a “humanitarian gesture”; some of the money will go to a new trust fund for the Ogoni. Shell now hopes that it might even resume oil production in the region. But things are unlikely to be that simple.

There has been a mixed reaction to the settlement in Ogoniland. Some Ogonis are disinclined to forget years of mistrust and others are in talks to clean up the oil spills that have been left untended, still oozing into farmland and rivers after 15 years. Ogoniland is just a sliver of Shell’s onshore oil fields, and the out-of-court settlement is unlikely to end the company’s longstanding troubles in a volatile part of Nigeria that is even more violent now than it was back in the 1990s.

The payout could also spark further court battles invoking the same American law, the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789, originally intended to counter piracy, under which the Shell case was brought. It has been used to great effect in recent years, first against foreign officials who violated human rights, and later against firms that appeared to abet such acts. Most of the lawsuits against big companies, however, have been settled out of court, setting no clear precedents.

Pfizer, an American drugs company, is arranging details of a $75m payout to plaintiffs in the northern city of Kano. There, the Kano State and federal government of Nigeria originally claimed the equivalent of about $6 billion in damages following the 1996 trial of a meningitis vaccine that was alleged to have killed some children and left others mentally damaged. Pfizer also denies any wrongdoing. But, in a country known for its scammers and operators, the size of the payouts is likely to get people thinking.

Related Items

From The Economist

• The travails of business in Nigeria
  Jun 26th 2008

Country briefing

• Nigeria

More articles about…

• Human rights
• Oil

Websites

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch report on Nigeria. Shell has information on its role in the Niger Delta.

SOURCE ARTICLE