Nasarawa

Abia

Abuja Federal Capital Territory

Ogun

Akwa Ibom

Ekiti

Gombe

Osun

Enugu

Adamawa

Bauchi

Jigawa

Ondo

Rivers

Anambra

Kaduna

Taraba

Plateau

Benue

Kebbi

Kano

Borno

Sokoto

Kogi

Cross River

Yobe

Katsina

Zamfara

Bayelsa

Ebonyi

Kwara

Delta

Niger

Lagos

Nigeria

The law sets a target for net zero GHG emissions for year 2050 - 2070. The President made a commitment at the COP 26 in Glasgow to achieve net zero by 2060

end flaring by 2030, and reduce the contribution of flaring to total oil and gas emissions to less than 10% in 2020 from 80%

reduce greenhouse gas emissions intensity of GDP by 20% by 2030 relative to base period 2010-14 - this is conditional, the reductions in intensity will increase to 45% depending on conditions such as climate finance and capacity building

10% of HFCs phased out by 2030, 50% by 2040 and 80% by 2045

30% electricity generated by renewables by 2030

30% reduction in methane emission intensity from enteric fermentation by 2030

50% reduction in anaerobic digestion by 2030

50% reduction in the fraction of crop residue burned in fields by 2030

By 2030, 50% of all cultivated land will adopt AWD management

50% methane recovered from landfills and a 50% reduction in open burning of waste by 2050

50% improvement in energy efficiency in the industry sector by 2050

50% reduction in methane emissions from oil and gas by 2030

All kerosene lighting replaced by solar lamps by 2022

20% households using biomass stoves by 2030

Euro IV limits met by all vehicles by 2030

25% of all buses converted to CNG by 2030

reduce oil and gas emissions to be in line with Kyoto Protocol by 2043

increase share of alternative energy to 35% by 2043, with a target of 30% by 2023

create 250,000 jobs in the energy sector and provide solar power to 5 million households by 2023

reduce energy consumption levels by 20% by 2020 and 50% by 2030 through energy efficiency

Create 250,000 jobs and power 5 million households by 2023 with solar energy

12% forest cover by 2015, then 18% by 2020

The Incorporated Trustees of HEDA Resource Centre filed a complaint in March of 2025 against Shell Petroleum Development Company Limited, Renaissance African Energy Company Limited, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and four others with the Federal High Court of Lagos. The complaint challenges the transfer of an oil exploration license from Shell to Renaissance African Energy Company, as HEDA contends that the “transfer and divestment” of the oil exploration license "may have contravened provisions of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), 2021, and related regulations.”

The plaintiff contends that the license transfer failed to meet statutory revisions, specifically including conducting and disclosing an Environmental Evaluation Study as regulated under the Upstream Petroleum Environmental Regulation 2022. The plaintiff contends that the approval of this transaction “could set a dangerous precedent” in terms of climate change and environmental sustainability. 

HEDA contends that by sections “10 (f), 95 (11) and (15), 235, 237, and 238 of the PIA, 2021, Regulations 4.2.5, 5.2.4, 5.2.5 and 5.4 of the Guidelines for Obtaining Minister’s Consent to Assignment of Interest in Oil and Gas Assets, 2021,  Regulations 7 and 8 of the Upstream Petroleum Environmental Regulation, 2022, Regulations 8(1) and (2), 9(1) and (2) of the Upstream Petroleum Environmental Remediation Regulations, 2024 Regulation 13(1) – (3) of the Gas Flaring, Venting and Methane Emissions (Prevention of Waste and Pollution) Regulations, 2023”, the transfer of the license is unlawful. 
 
The court heard the case on May 26, 2025, and proceedings have since begun. 

In early 2021, the Human and Environmental Development Agenda Resource Center submitted a formal complaint to the Federal High Court of Lagos. The complaint challenged the failure of multiple Nigerian government institutions to respond to HEDA’s Freedom of Information (FOI) request. The request for FOI was regarding gas flaring in the country, as HEDA was seeking access to detailed records on gas flaring, involved parties, and penalties from the Federal Ministry of Environment, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, and other relevant agencies. 

HEDA contended that the agencies failure to respond to the request violates the provisions of the FOI Act, 2011, which protects the right of members of the public to request and obtain information from public institutions within seven days. The actual request was submitted to promote transparency in Nigeria’s extractive industries, as gas flaring has been a long-standing environmental and public health risk in Nigeria. Even though environmental regulations and financial penalties for gas flaring are outlined in the Associated Gas Re-Injection Act, HEDA questioned the inconsistent enforcement of the law. 

In terms of relief, HEDA’s complaint sought for the court to order the government to release a list of companies issued permits to flare gas, the volumes of gas flared by each company from 2016-2021, the penalties imposed on these companies, records of penalties paid, and any additional documentation related to enforcement actions or non-compliance. HEDA also grounded its claims in Nigeria’s obligations under international human rights and environmental treaties focused on climate change mitigation, such as the Paris Agreement. 

In May of 2025, the Federal High Court ruled in favor of Lagos, ordering the government to release the requested documents. The court found that the release of the information was of public interest and that the Federal Government had no legal grounds for withholding the information. 

On May 13, 2005, the Centre for Oil Pollution Watch (COPW) commenced legal action against the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). The NNPC was established by an Act of Parliament and carries on business of prospecting, mining, producing, exploring and storing persistent hydrocarbon mineral oil such as crude oil. It has offices, oil installations, oil pipelines, oil rigs and so on in different parts of Nigeria The case was brought in the Federal High Court, Lagos Division, over an oil spillage in ACHA Community of Abia State of Nigeria. The oil spillage was allegedly caused by the defendant’s negligence resulting from its pipeline, which had corroded due to lack of maintenance, had ruptured, fractured and spewed its entire Contents of persistent hydrocarbon mineral oil into surrounding streams and river of lneh/Aku, resulting in contaminating two community streams that were the major sources of water supply to the community. The plaintiff alleged that although the defendant contained the spillage on the surface, it failed to clean up or reinstate the Ineh/Aku streams/river. Furthermore, the plaintiff averred that the respondent was negligent in both the causation and containment of the oil spillage; that the spillage had harmful effect on living resources, marine life, human health and other usage of the streams. 

The respondent challenged the plaintiff’s standing to sue and sought an order striking the suit. On February 9, 2006, the trial court struck out the suit for lack of locus having not suffered any injury at all, let alone any injury above every other member of the Acha community resulting from the alleged oil spillage. On January 28, 20013, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by reaffirming the trial court’s ruling. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court on March 9, 2013. On July 20, 2018, the Supreme Court unanimously granted the appeal in favor of the appellant.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria (SCN) held:
1.	That the appellant NGO had the standing to sue the respondent, thereby liberalizing or broadening the rule of standing. The Supreme Court specifically highlighted “that public spirited individuals and organizations can bring an action in courts against relevant public authorities and private entities to demand their compliance with relevant laws and to ensure the remediation, restoration and protection of the environment.”
2.	The Supreme Court further clarified that “Accordingly, every person, including NGOs, who bonafide seek the due performance of statutory functions or enforcement of statutory provisions or public laws, especially laws designed to protect human lives, public health and the environment, should be regarded as proper persons clothed with standing in law to request adjudication on such issues of public nuisance.”
3.	The Supreme Court also acknowledged that recognizing public interest litigation will help address some other barriers to access to justice, as poor communities without “the financial muscle to sue” which usually and disproportionately bear the brunt of environmental and climate change problems, will have the benefit of public spirited persons and organizations fighting their cause.
4.	The Supreme Court noted particularly, for the first time, that: “there is no gain saying in the fact that there is increasing concern about climate change, depletion of the ozone layer, waste management, flooding and global warming etc… Both nationally and internationally, countries and organizations are adopting stronger measures to protect and safeguard the environment for the benefits of the present and future … it is on account of this, inter alia, that I am of the firm view that this court, being a court of policy should expand the locus standi of the Plaintiff/Appellant to sue” – Per Aka’ahs, JSC. 
Further, the national resources of earth… “must be protected and conserved for the benefit of present and future generations through careful planning and management as appropriate” – Per Eko, JSC.
5.	The Supreme Court also made significant strides in ‘greening’ the Nigerian Constitution and confirming the existence and enforceability of environmental human rights in Nigeria, in a manner that increases the possibility of successful climate change litigation in the country, especially by allowing public interest litigation. First, the Supreme Court held that Section 20 of the Nigerian Constitution on duty to protect the environment by the State is justiciable when read together with, and in the context of, a provision like section 4(2) of the Constitution, on the power to make laws to give effect to section 20. Second, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized for the first time, that section 33 of the Constitution which guarantees the Right to Life, implicitly includes and constitutes a fundamental rights to a clean and healthy environment for all. Third, the Supreme Court explicitly affirmed the enforceability of the environmental right in Article 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights as domesticated in Nigeria by the African Charter Act, Cap. A9 LFN 2004.

6.	Finally, the Supreme Court decision in the above case aligns with the Constitutional Human Rights approach to Environmental and Climate Protection taken earlier by the Lower Court/Federal High Court in Jonah Gbemre vs Shell and others. It demonstrates a significant positive paradigm shift in the attitude of the Supreme Court to environmental and climate change related claims. It provides additional human rights and constitutional tools for potential climate litigation in Nigeria.

Nigeria

Recent cases