OIL giant Shell has agreed to a £9.6 million settlement to end a lawsuit alleging it was complicit in the execution of the Nigerian activist Ken Saro-Wiwa.
The company, which continues to operate in Nigeria, insisted it was not involved in the 1995 hangings of six people, including Mr Saro-Wiwa, a poet. But it said it had agreed to settle in the hope of aiding the "process of reconciliation".
"This g
esture also acknowledges that, even though Shell had no part in the violence that took place, the plaintiffs and others have suffered," the company said.
The lawsuit, filed in a New York court, claimed Shell colluded with Nigeria's former military government to silence environmental and human rights activists in the Ogoni region.
The oil-rich district sits in the southern part of Nigeria and covers about 400sq miles. Shell started operating there in 1958.
The main complaint against Shell focused on activities by its subsidiary, Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria.
The lawsuit claimed that, in the 1990s, Shell officials helped to give Nigerian police weapons, participated in security sweeps of the area, and hired government troops who shot at villagers protesting over the construction of a pipeline.
It also alleges Shell helped the government capture and hang Ken Saro-Wiwa, John Kpuinen, Saturday Doobee, Felix Nuate, Daniel Gbokoo and Dr Barinem Kiobel on 10 November, 1995.
Mr Saro-Wiwa, the leader of the Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People, led rallies against Shell. He blamed the company for myriad oil spills and gas fires in the region.
His son, Ken Saro-Wiwa jnr, 40, said that, although Shell had denied any wrongdoing, "the fact that they would have to settle is a victory for us". He added: "I think he (his father] would be happy with this."
Apart from compensating the families, the money from Shell will pay for years of legal fees. A large chunk of the settlement – roughly a third – will create a trust that will invest in Nigerian social programmes, covering educational endowments, agricultural development, enterprise and adult literacy.
However, the settlement will have a negligible effect on Shell's shareholders: it amounts to less than one-hundredth of 1 per cent of Shell's annual revenue and is comparable to the annual cost of renting one of the supertankers that Shell uses to deliver Nigerian oil to other countries.
Shell has consistently maintained that it never advocated violence and that it lobbied Nigerian officials to grant Mr Saro-Wiwa clemency.
Critics say Shell did so because of the bad publicity the case had generated.
Jenny Green, a lawyer for the Centre for Constitutional Rights in New York, who helped to file the lawsuit in 1996, said: "Is it enough to bring back the lives of our clients? Obviously not."
But she said the case would send a message to multinationals that operate in developing countries. "You can't commit human rights violations as a part of doing business," she said.
The Shell settlement ends one of several legal cases that have been brought against energy companies by indigenous peoples where they operate.
Villagers in Indonesia are suing Exxon Mobil, claiming it employed guards who kidnapped, tortured and murdered civilians, while Chevron is awaiting a verdict from a judge in Ecuador in a dispute over the role of Texaco, which Chevron bought in 2001, in causing environmental damage in the Amazon rain forest.
At least one additional lawsuit alleging human rights abuses by Shell in Nigeria is pending in the New York court.
