EXTENDING THE FRONTIERS OF THE CONCEPT OF LOCUS STANDI IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS: THE SUPREME COURT’S PRONOUNCEMENT IN THE CASE OF CENTRE FOR OIL POLLUTION WATCH V. NNPC [2019] 5 NWLR (PT. 1666) 518.

For law to be properly so called, it has to be dynamic. This feature of law was, not so long ago, given impetusby the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of Centre for Oil Pollution Watch V. NNPC [2019] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 518. The Judgment was delivered on the 20th July, 2018 but reported by Nigeria’s leading law publisher, the Nigerian Weekly Law Report (otherwise known as N.W.L.R.) on 15th April, 2019.

In the said case, the apex Court in accordance with its duty of expanding the scope of the law took down the limitation to the meaning of locus standi which hitherto held sway.

The term, “locus standi” is Latin and literally means "place of standing". In its expounded legal form, locus standi denotes the legal right or capacity of a person to institute an action in a court of law when his right is trampled upon by somebody or authority. The underpinning behind the idea is that for an individual to be able to bring up a law suit against another, such an individual must show that he has been directly affected by the conduct complained of in the suit. It was evolved to protect the court from being converted into a jamboree by professional litigants or meddlesome interlopers who have no interest in matters. For locus standi to be proven, a plaintiff must establish (1) that the act being challenged has caused the plaintiff actual injury; (2) that the interest sought to be protected is within the zone of interests meant to be regulated by the statutory or constitutional guarantee in question.

Before the delivery of the Judgment by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case, the position of the law had always been that a person with no interest in a suit could not bring up an action challenging another. Such a person was considered a busybody interloper. However, the tide changed (with particular reference to issues of environmental degradation) after the Supreme Court made a pronouncement on the matter.

The brief facts of the case in view are that the Appellant, in enforcing its mandate, sued the Respondent at the Federal High Court, Lagos for the alleged neglect of its pipelines in Acha Autonomous Community in IsukwuatoLocal Government Area, Abia State consequently causing a oil spillage in the said community and among other things denying the inhabitants of the community portable water from its only source, the Ineh and AkuStreams/Rivers.

The Respondent (as Defendant at the trial Court) filed its Defense and included therein an argument on the issue of locus standi, arguing that the Appellant (as Plaintiffbefore the trial Court) lacked the capacity to sue it (theRespondent). The argument of the Respondent was that even if it was negligent towards looking after the pipelines, the Appellant could not sue it as it was not a member of the community affected by the oil spillage neither had it shown that it suffered any damage as a result of the oil spillage.

The trial Court as well as the appellate Court upheld the arguments of the Respondent mainly on the ground that the Appellant failed to show that it suffered any damage as a result of the Respondent’s alleged neglect thereby striking out and dismissing the suit/appeal of the Appellant respectively.

The Supreme Court in determining whether the Appellant has locus standi invited some senior lawyers known in legal circles amici curiae (Latin for friends of the court)to assist her in coming to a position on the issue. 

In an interesting scenario that played out, Counsel for the Appellant, Prof. Joseph Mbadugha together with the following amici curiae – Aiwaju Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, Lucious Nwosu, SAN and A. B. Mahmoud, SAN were of the view that the Appellant has the requisite locus standi to sue, having shown and demonstrated the required interest to entitle it to sue. They argued that any person with genuine and public-spirited intention should be permitted to approach the court with respect to public interest matters such as the one in the instant case. They urged the Court to expand the frontier and relax the concept of locus standi as applicable to environmental litigation.

On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Respondent, Victor Ogude Esq., and the amici curiae whose opinionsconcurred with his – Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN and Dayo Apata, (Solicitor-General of the Federation representing Abubakar Malami, SAN (the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice) sought to persuade the Court that the Appellant is a mere busybody or troublemaker (with an abstract corporate soul), usurping the rights of the affected citizens to complain. They also argued that extending the scope of locus standi to accommodate an NGO such as the Appellant in respect of environmental degradation matters would have the effect of usurping the powers conferred on agencies and offices like the Attorney-General’s office established by various State and Federal Laws to protect the environment on behalf of the people. They relied on several statutes which they submitted, have taken care of the Appellant’s grouse. It was also contended that allowing the Appellant standing to sue would open the floodgates to frivolous litigation which will overwhelm the courts’ dockets.

In giving its Judgment, the Supreme Court after considering a host of foreign judgments from common wealth jurisdictions on the matter, lived to its billing as it held that the Appellant has the right to institute the action thereby expanding the scope of locus standi on environmental matters in Nigeria. The Court further held that there is nothing in the Constitution that says the Attorney-General is the only proper person clothed with standing/power to enforce the performance of a public duty or institute public interest litigation such as the instant suit.

While commending the efforts of the Counsel on both sides and the entire amici curiae who contributed their opinion to the matter, it is apt to note, with the greatest respect, that the arguments in support of the position that the Appellant lacks locus standi are not water-tight. Do the proponents of such position mean to say that the Appellant, being a corporate entity and with an objective to ensure sanity in the environment, cannot enforce the mandate it was incorporated for? In a country where government agencies legally saddled with certain responsibilities barely live up to their duties, should the Appellant and all concerned persons wait endlessly for the agencies legally saddled with the responsibility to act before the needful is done? How reasonable is it to deny a valid suit as such as the instant one the chance of being heard on the basis that if same is entertained, the gates will be open to a myriad of frivolous suits? Are courts not enabled by law to determine a frivolous suit from a genuine one and consequently strike out the former? Was it considered that the inhabitants of the community affected by the oil spillage may not have had the means to file a suit in court thus necessitating the need for a better placed individual to institute such action? 

It is is imperative to commend the Supreme Court’s boldness in blazing the trail of this new path as these are the sort of legal advancement society direly needs for her development. One must also note that this decision by the Supreme Court has given the concept of locus standi an expansion only in environmental matters. The need therefore to apply it to all matters of public interest is important. Hopefully and with time, the law will develop to such an extent where the principle will apply to all public interest actions.