In 1995, Nigeria's authorities executed Ken Saro-Wiwa, an environmental activist and a member of the Ogoni ethic group in the Niger Delta, whose land was being targeted and destroyed by the oil extracting activities of Royal Dutch Shell. At the height of his non-violent campaign, Saro-Wiwa was arrested along with nine other anti-oil campaigners. All were tried by a military tribunal and hanged by the Nigerian military government of General Sani Abacha. The charges were entirely politically motivated.
This devastating human tragedy provoked much outrage and raised many important questions, the most crucial of which had to do with the human rights responsibilities of multinational corporations, especially when working in conjunction with corrupt national governments. In 1996, relatives of the nine executed campaigners brought a case to hold Shell accountable for alleged human rights violations in Nigeria, in Ogoniland in the Niger Delta in particular. The case accused Shell of being complicit in murder, torture and other abuses by Nigeria's former military government against campaigners in the region.
While the case was set to go to trial at the beginning of this month, Shell on Monday agreed to pay $15.5 million to settle the case. Shell continues to deny any wrongdoing, touting the settlement as a "humanitarian gesture" meant to compensate the plaintiffs for their loss and to cover a portion of their legal fees and costs. Regardless, the settlement indubitably brings a long-awaited peace to the families of the victims. Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., son of the executed activist, had a moving piece in yesterday's Guardian in which he wrote:
Nothing about this has come or will ever come easy. Every word, every phrase and every comma has been weighed, scrutinised and debated. These are life and death matters. Head versus heart. The case has been freighted with all kinds of agendas that it cannot possibly satisfy. In the end a settlement is a compromise; both parties agree to settle their differences by meeting in a so-called middle. That middle is a matter of perspective of course. To some this must be bewildering. To others it was too long in coming. In the end it is only those who are intimately involved, who have everything to lose and everything to gain that have to make a decision that will not satisfy everyone.
History will show that this was a landmark case. Multinationals now know that a precedent has been set, that it is possible to be sued for human rights violations in foreign jurisdictions.
Indeed, the significance of the settlement lies precisely in the fact that the bar for corporate social responsibility has been firmly set, sending multinationals a clear signal that their activities vis-a-vis local populations in the regions in which they work will be under close scrutiny. Surely a step in the right direction.