Source: Greenpeace Statement –
Landmark submission to Africa’s highest court frames fossil fuels, deforestation and extractive industrial agriculture as not development but human rights violations
ARUSHA, TANZANIA – Greenpeace Africa has submitted an amicus curiae brief before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR), arguing that climate destruction is a systematic, ongoing violation of the rights of African people.
The submission situates the climate crisis within a broader pattern of extractive economic models imposed across Africa, from fossil fuel extraction to mining, deforestation and industrial agriculture. Greenpeace Africa argues that these industries threaten the rights to life, health, food, water, and a healthy environment, and that governments have binding duties under the African Charter to prevent harm, ensure transparency and public participation, and provide remedies to affected communities.
Greenpeace Africa argues that allowing multinational corporations to expand without meaningful environmental safeguards constitutes a fundamental failure of the State’s duty to protect the rights to life, health, and a satisfactory environment.
“This case is about justice for frontline communities already bearing the costs of a climate crisis they are least responsible for,” said Eugene Perumal, Governance and Legal Advisor at Greenpeace Africa. “Across the continent, communities are already living with the consequences of decisions made without their consent. We are asking the Court to affirm that governments must protect people and to draw a hard line against this ongoing corporate impunity.”
The submission also highlights the growing risk posed by industrial livestock expansion – a relatively new but rapidly emerging threat on the continent. Unlike traditional pastoralist and smallholder systems, industrial meat production concentrates environmental damage, drives deforestation, and shifts control of food systems away from local communities toward multinational corporations.
As part of this broader trend, the brief references the planned expansion of JBS, the world’s largest meat company, into Nigeria. The proposed $2.5 billion investment in industrial meat processing illustrates how global agribusiness is seeking to establish a foothold in African markets, raising concerns about environmental impacts, lack of public consultation, and the long-term implications for local food systems and livelihoods.
JBS has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Nigerian government to construct six industrial meat-processing plants, with at least one Nigerian state reportedly pledging 1.2 million hectares of land for the project. The MOU has not been made public. Formal Freedom of Information requests for the agreement and for the social and environmental impact assessments that must accompany any investment of this scale have gone completely unanswered. Local communities say they have not been consulted.
Invoking Article 21(5) of the African Charter – which obliges States to “eliminate all forms of foreign economic exploitation, particularly that which is practised by international monopolies” – the submission argues that the facilitation of extractive corporate expansion, without transparency, public participation, or environmental impact assessment, constitutes a direct failure of its duty to protect.
The submission draws the landmark precedent of SERAC v. Nigeria (2001), arising from Shell’s catastrophic oil operations in Ogoniland, which established that states have a positive duty to regulate corporations, conduct and publish impact assessments, and guarantee meaningful community participation before major industrial development proceeds.
The submission invokes the SERAC standards directly: the Nigerian government’s handling of this agreement satisfies none of the obligations established by the ruling.
Elizabeth Atieno, Food Campaigner at Greenpeace Africa, said:
“The projects being approved today will determine who controls our land, our food systems and the health of our planet in the future. We look to the Court for a powerful advisory opinion that cements the rights of African communities to say no to extractive agriculture, and sends a definitive message to corporate exploiters that their time for operating with impunity on this continent is over.”
What the Court Heard Today
Greenpeace Africa’s submission argues that Africa’s climate burden is, at its root, a human rights violation.
The submission calls on the Court to affirm three categories of binding State obligation under the African Charter:
- Substantive obligations: to cut emissions, protect carbon sinks, build resilience, and remedy harm already done
- Procedural obligations: to guarantee public participation, access to information, and access to justice, including when multinational corporations operate within a State’s borders
- Remedial obligations: to ensure reparations for climate-related human rights violations, including from corporations whose operations lock in further damage
ENDS.
Notes to Editors:
What is an amicus curiae submission?
An “amicus curiae” – Latin for “friend of the court” – is a submission made by a party not directly involved in a case but with relevant expertise or a strong public interest in the outcome. Greenpeace Africa has been admitted as amicus curiae before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which is hearing a request for an advisory opinion on what human rights obligations African States hold in the face of the climate crisis. This proceeding is part of an unprecedented global quartet of parallel advisory proceedings before the world’s four highest international courts, expected to produce the most authoritative rulings on climate and human rights law in history.
What is SERAC v. Nigeria?
Social and Economic Rights Action Center (SERAC) v. Nigeria (2001) is a landmark ruling by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, arising from Shell’s oil operations in Ogoniland and the catastrophic environmental and human damage they caused. The Commission found Nigeria had violated the African Charter by failing to regulate Shell, establishing that States have a positive duty to protect communities from corporate harm, must conduct and publish environmental and social impact assessments before major industrial development, and must guarantee meaningful community participation. These standards apply directly to the Nigerian government’s handling of the JBS expansion, which satisfies none of them.Why does this advisory opinion matter?
An advisory opinion affirming robust State obligations in the climate context – including the duty to regulate multinational corporations – would carry significant legal weight across the continent, shaping how domestic courts, governments, and regulators interpret their obligations. For Nigeria specifically, it would strengthen civil society’s legal basis to compel disclosure of the JBS MOU and associated impact assessments. More broadly, it would close the accountability gap that has allowed companies like JBS to operate in the Global South with a degree of impunity that would be unacceptable in their home jurisdictions.
