Eighty-nine civil society organisations in Nigeria have called on the federal government to publish its review of the country’s investment treaties, warning that international arbitration mechanisms could expose public funds to costly claims and restrict the government’s ability to enforce environmental and climate regulations.
The groups, including Amnesty International Nigeria, BudgIT, ActionAid Nigeria, Health of Mother Earth Foundation, Policy Alert and Yiaga Africa, also demanded a review of Nigeria’s reliance on the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system, which allows foreign investors to challenge certain government measures before international arbitration tribunals.
In a statement issued on 17 October to mark the Global Days of Action to End ISDS, the CSOs called on the federal government and the National Assembly to ensure that investment agreements do not erode environmental protection, public health, fiscal stability and communities’ access to justice.
They also called for improved transparency in investment agreements and relevant dispute-settlement provisions, as well as safeguards to ensure that new offshore petroleum investments do not unnecessarily restrict Nigeria’s regulatory powers.
The statement comes as Nigeria pursues major offshore oil projects and seeks to attract investment in transition minerals, including lithium, despite growing pressure for stronger environmental accountability and climate action.
Investment disputes, public finances
The CSOs warned that ISDS provisions could cost Nigeria substantial compensation claims when foreign investors consider government policies inconsistent with protections under applicable investment treaties.
They said the financial consequences could be huge for a country with limited fiscal space and extensive environmental liabilities, particularly in oil-producing communities.
“Public resources spent defending claims or paying awards are resources unavailable for healthcare, education, climate adaptation, clean energy and environmental restoration,” they said.
They explained that the prospect of expensive arbitration could also discourage governments from introducing or strengthening regulations in the public interest, a phenomenon commonly described as regulatory chill.
The CSOs stressed that foreign investors were entitled to fair treatment and due process but should not enjoy exceptional rights that undermine democratic decisions, environmental accountability or access to justice for affected communities.
Nigeria’s record of arbitration disputes
The statement cited three publicly documented investor-state arbitration cases involving Nigeria’s petroleum sector.
Shell Nigeria Ultra Deep Limited initiated proceedings against Nigeria at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in 2007. The case was discontinued in 2011.
Shell Petroleum N.V. and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited initiated another ICSID case in 2021 under the Nigeria-Netherlands bilateral investment treaty. That case was discontinued in October 2022.
In June 2023, Korea National Oil Corporation and its Nigerian subsidiaries initiated another case under the Nigeria-Korea bilateral investment treaty. The case remained pending in the latest records cited by the organisations in 2026.
The CSOs noted that the three cases had not proven Nigeria’s liability in the records they reviewed, but argued that they show the legal and fiscal exposure associated with defending investment disputes.
They also raised concerns about the implications of investment protections for Nigeria’s planned offshore petroleum developments, including Bonga North and Bonga South West/Aparo.
They called on the government to ensure that petroleum agreements, production-sharing arrangements and fiscal incentives preserve its ability to strengthen environmental, climate, public health and fiscal regulations.
Lithium dispute raises fresh concerns
The CSOs also cited the Jupiter Lithium dispute in Kaduna, registered at ICSID in June 2026 under the Nigeria-United Kingdom bilateral investment treaty.
The case, which remained pending, concerns a lithium mining project and shows the potential implications of investment protections for Nigeria’s emerging transition-minerals sector.
The CSOs said the country must ensure that investment arrangements support responsible mining, environmental safeguards and domestic economic benefits rather than reproduce the environmental and social problems associated with oil extraction.
Demand publication of treaty review
A central demand of the CSOs is the immediate publication of the report of a nine-member committee inaugurated by the Attorney-General of the Federation on 8 November 2024 to review Nigeria’s bilateral investment treaties and the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act.
The committee was mandated to examine how investment promotion could be balanced with national interests, environmental protection and sustainable development.
The CSOs said the committee’s findings and recommendations had not been made public and demanded their release without further delay.
If the review remains incomplete, they called on the government to disclose its status and announce a firm completion date.
They also called for open consultations involving the National Assembly, civil society organisations, host communities, labour groups and independent experts.
They further urged the federal government to take lawful steps towards terminating or replacing investment agreements that expose legitimate public-interest regulation to legal and financial risks, while supporting international efforts to move beyond the ISDS system.
They said Nigeria needs investment that supports development without compromising democratic accountability, environmental protection or the rights of its citizens.
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.