Shell faces fresh allegations of misleading the English courts amid a long-running legal dispute over oil pollution in Nigeria’s Niger Delta. Revised court documents filed at the High Court accuse the UK-listed energy company of deliberately providing false or misleading evidence to evade trial in the United Kingdom. Shell has rejected these claims.
The lawsuit stems from a claim brought by the Bille community, which is seeking compensation and clean-up costs for decades of damage caused by oil spills in their region. The case is scheduled for trial next year and could prove to be one of the most significant environmental lawsuits confronting the company.
Previous statements by the UN have described the environmental remediation in the Niger Delta as potentially “the most wide-ranging and long-term oil clean-up exercise ever undertaken.” Shell has argued that much of the contamination resulted from illegal siphoning and sabotage by criminal groups targeting its pipelines.
In earlier legal proceedings, including an appeal to the UK Supreme Court, Shell contended that liability rested with its Nigerian subsidiary, Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC), rather than the parent company. SPDC operated as part of a joint venture alongside the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, TotalEnergies, and Eni’s predecessor Agip.
The amended pleadings, submitted by lawyers representing the Bille community, allege that Shell misrepresented SPDC’s operational independence during the jurisdictional challenge. Contrary to Shell’s prior claims, the documents assert that Shell’s senior management maintained substantial control, oversight, and supervision of the Nigerian operations and worked in concert with SPDC on pipeline management and response.
The claimants point to evidence from Michiel Brandjes, Shell’s company secretary in 2016, who testified that Shell did not intervene in the policies of its operating company subsidiaries. Newly revealed internal communications appear to contradict this stance. In one 2008 email, Malcolm Brinded, then head of Shell’s exploration and production division, expressed discomfort about SPDC’s practice of disposing polluted materials in unlined pits and suggested that in other jurisdictions, alternative methods might be required.
The claimants argue that Shell’s 2015 jurisdictional challenge was a deliberate tactic to delay justice, resulting in over five additional years of litigation during which pollution allegedly continued to harm local communities. They also accuse Shell of facilitating the “widespread deletion of data” belonging to key figures in the case, leading to the loss of relevant emails.
Shell has not yet submitted an amended defence and maintains that it did not mislead the courts. A company spokesperson stated that Shell intends to vigorously defend itself at trial. Michiel Brandjes did not respond to requests for comment.