The claimants belong to the indigenous Ogoni people, who live in Ogoniland, an oil-rich area in Nigeria. Up until early 1993 a joint venture, of which the SPDC also formed part, had extracted oil in that area. Ogoni organisations protested the way this was done, to which the Nigerian authorities responded with a crackdown. Supporters of the more radical Ogoni organisations were held responsible for the protests. In November 1995, a special tribunal sentenced nine men – the Ogoni 9 – to death for their involvement in the murder of Ogoni leaders. The claimants’ husbands belonged to this group of men, who were hanged after their conviction.

The claimants hold the SPDC and the other Shell companies summoned co-responsible for violations of fundamental rights which, according to them, caused the death of their husbands. One of the accusations is that the SPDC was involved in bribing witnesses, who made incriminating statements in the cases against the claimants’ husbands. The court allowed the claimants to submit proof for this accusation, for which they produced witness examinations and documents. The court has assessed the proof and has concluded there is no proof of the SPDC’s involvement in witness bribery.

The witnesses testified about having to write and sign prepared incriminating statements and about training sessions where the witnesses were prepared for making incriminating statements, all this in exchange for payments and the promise of jobs. At the time the witnesses were told that the money they received came from ‘Shell’. The witnesses also made statements about the presence of persons, who they referred to as ‘Shell staff’. However, the court holds that the witness statements are based to a great extent on assumptions and interpretations of the witnesses. Furthermore, the statements are insufficiently concrete for the conclusion that the money referred to by the witnesses had indeed come from the SPDC. In addition, the statements yielded no concrete proof that SPDC representatives attended the training sessions mentioned by the witnesses. 

In a previous interlocutory judgment, the court had ruled that the claimants’ other accusations did not stand up to scrutiny. In this final judgment, the court has now also found the claimants’ last accusation unsubstantiated, denying their applications.