Niger Delta activist and elder statesman, Anabs Sara-Igbe, has applauded the Supreme Court, over its decision to dismiss an appeal filed by NVT Power & Energy Ltd, against the judgment given in favour of eight kalabari communities in Rivers State.
Sara-Igbe, who hails from Akuku Toru local Government Area where most of the affected communities are situated, added that the judgment serves as a relief to Niger Delta host communities, describing it as a good development that would encourage other marginalised communities to rise up and fight for their rights.
The former spokesman of the Pan Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF) said: “When the Supreme Court gives a judgment, it stands and it’s final. So, I believe that this verdict will encourage other communities in the region that have been ill-treated to seek redress in court.
“The verdict will also spur the need for companies to swiftly respond positively to environmental complaints and demands by host communities.’
Recall that Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, had announced the ruling of the Supreme Court, that ordered the dismissal of the appeal marked: SC/CV/849/2022 filed against the June 7 ruling of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt.
The apex court’s order dismissing the appeal made on November 4 was sequel to an application by an energy production and distribution firm, NVT Power for the withdrawal of the appeal.
The certified true copy (CTC) of the ruling was, however, obtained on December 16th in Abuja.
The communities involved include Opu-Benibo Granville community; Orubibi Douglas community; Blackduke Oweredaba community; Ajumogobia -Bestman community; Oruwari community and Siri Young Jack community, Don-Pedro community and Membere Community, all in Abonnema Kingdom, in Akuku Toru Local Government Area of Rivers State.
The host communities had, in October 2020, sued the firm at the High Court of Rivers State sitting in Port Harcourt.
The communities had prayed the court to, among others, compel the firm to negotiate with them and “pay forthwith to their attorney/legal representative all agreed accruals, benefits and compensation that is due to the claimants communities by reason of the defendant’s activities, operations and facilities within the lands of the claimants communities.”
Parties later agreed to a terms of settlement, which Justice A. Enebeli adopted as the court’s consent judgment in the case on June 2.
The terms of the settlement agreement was that the communities, “being independent, autonomous communities and the location of the defendant’s several facilities and activities, are entitled to participate and benefit directly from all accruals, rents, contracts, development and economic empowerment. They are also entitled to compensation, environmental clean-up, scholarships and economic empowerment projects undertaken by all companies including the defendant for their host communities in Abonnema Kingdom in Akuku Toru Local Government Area of Rivers State of Nigeria.”
They were also to “be included in all agreements and or Global Memorandum of Understanding to be executed or entered into between the defendant and its hosts communities in Abonnema Kingdom in Akuku Toru local Government Area of Rivers State of Nigeria.”
The firm was ordered to negotiate with the communities through their lawyers “and pay forthwith to their attorney/legal representative all agreed accruals, benefits and compensation that is due to the claimants communities by reason of the defendant’s activities, operations and facilities within the lands of the claimants communities in Abonnema Kingdom, Akuku Toru Local Government area of Rivers State of Nigeria.”
Justice Enebeli subsequently ordered NVT to pay each of the eight communities N1 million, an aspect of the consent judgment, which the firm appealed against at the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt.
In a ruling on June 7, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal in Port-Harcourt, led by Justice Joseph Ikyegh, struck out NVT’s appeal for being incompetent, having been filed without first seeking the leave of the court.
NVT then appealed the ruling of the Court of Appeal at the Supreme Court, an appeal it subsequently withdrew, which the apex court dismissed in its ruling.
