SUMMARY
The environment remains man’s greatest legacy, environmental pollution leads to the degradation of the Eco-system. Man lives in the environment to survive, therefore, man must safeguard the environment from being polluted. It is in this respect that the Nigerian Government has put in place certain legal and institutional framework for the control of pollution. It is also instructive to note that Nigeria has signed many international environmental treaties. We have seen that many laws are brought into place for the control of environmental pollution. There are also institutions established for the enforcement of these laws. Yet, our environment still suffers from pollution resulting from man’s activities. Considering the above, the crucial question is where are the legal and institutional framework for the control of environmental pollution when our environment is being polluted with reckless abandonment?
A critical analysis of the institutional framework for the control of environmental pollution will reveal in luminous clarity that there exists certain defects. It will be recalled that section 20 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 provides that: “The state shall protect and improve the environment and safeguard the water, air and land, forest and wildlife of Nigeria”, Pathetically, this provision is non-justifiable. However, despite the failure of our Constitution to provide for environmental right under chapter IV, the birth of the African Charter on Human Peoples Rights and its enactment as part of the Nigerian Law, may also provide a refuge for human right.
In respect of the enforcement of most of the environmental laws, for instance, the EIA Act, it is the government that prosecutes. Recent experience has shown that where the government is the culprit, there will be no way of ensuring that some remedies are advanced unless through civil actions. However, in respect of these civil matters, the individual still lacks locus standi. Again, recourse to common law tort remedies for liabilities arising from oil pollution does not even help matters. This is because the remedies are insufficient to effectively deal with the hazardous activities of the oil companies.
Furthermore, the concentration of oil pollution cases in one court does not also help matters. One of the reasons why trials of environmental pollution cases are not often pursued is that jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the Federal High Court. This court is already over-burdened with other cases in which it also has exclusive jurisdiction, and so the additional responsibility of environmental pollution cases on it has stretched it to a breaking point resulting in extreme congestion and delay in trials. Consequently, federal environmental authorities and even individuals are not enthused to take environmental pollution cases to court.
It is also to be noted that the federal government has interests in all the oil companies. It is doubtful whether the Federal Government Agencies will impose penalties on the Federal Government as it will amount to imposing penalties on itself. It is instructive to note that NNPC holds 60 percent shares in the joint venture with other oil companies. Although Section 37 of the NESREA Act provides for the setting-up of States and Local Governments Protection Agencies, there still remains much to be done to create an awareness on rural dwellers on the need for sustaining the environment. More of these people are totally oblivious of the danger until the calamity actually strikes. In respect to State Environmental Protection Laws, certain problems arise which of course tend to whittle down their relevance. More often, emphasis is laid on merely ensuring clean and healthy sanitary environment as against more complex environmental problems like pollution and environmental degradation. At the various levels, there is the problem of conflict of powers amongst the agencies usually established to tackle the problem of pollution. Other problems confronting the agencies are lack of trained technical manpower, inappropriate technology, quick money philosophy, absence of, or existence of ill-equipped institutional framework and absence of information.
More so, in respect of the economic approach, though it seems to have proffered solution to the problem of pollution, it leaves us with the question of sustainable development. The imposition of tax on the externality does not stop the polluting effect of the waste products on our environment. The issue of preservation of natural resource for generations yet unborn cannot be compromised for monetary compensations.
