For the interest of our readers and those that had been trying to understand the difference or link between the recent out-of-court-settlement reached between the Shell and the Wiwa family and other plaintiffs, we decided to put some questions of inquiries to the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and Maria Lahood, an attorney with the CCR’s responses to our questions are presented below:

Question by OG: It would be of interest if you could briefly explain the historical background, profile and mission of the Centre for Constitutional Right (CCR) for the benefit of our readers and those that may not know what your organization represent?

Maria LaHood: The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

CCR uses litigation proactively to advance the law in a positive direction, to empower poor communities and communities of color, to guarantee the rights of those with the fewest protections and least access to legal resources, to train the next generation of constitutional and human rights attorneys, and to strengthen the broader movement for constitutional and human rights. Our work began on behalf of civil rights activists, and over the last four decades CCR has lent its expertise and support to virtually every popular movement for social justice.

Since our founding, CCR has provided legal skills in a unique and effective manner and always with a progressive perspective. We use daring and innovative legal strategies which have produced many important precedents. CCR is often "ahead of the curve" in both identifying a problem and in suggesting novel or radical legal responses which, over time, become accepted and respected precedents and theories.

CCR accepts cases and projects based on principle and the value of the struggle itself, not solely by using a calculus of victory. There are cases which CCR has worked on tenaciously for decades before success was achieved, yet we stood by the cause and the client. We will continue to take these types of cases because justice demands it.

As we look to the future, CCR will continue to be at the forefront of legal thinking, using the law creatively in the service of justice. Through our human rights work, we will strengthen the international rule of law to promote justice and oppose armed and other forms of aggression. Through our racial justice work, we will strive to complete the unfinished civil rights movement, targeting racial profiling and other modern-day manifestations of racial repression.

We are dedicated to restoring the fundamental right to habeas corpus and will continue to combat the illegal expansion of executive power and the American torture programs that have undermined fundamental rights in the name of the so-called "war on terror."

History has repeatedly taught us that the hard-won victories of yesterday can never be taken for granted. As society changes, new threats to our rights arise, even as old ones are defeated. CCR will continue defending progressive movements for social change and devising new strategies to ensure that fundamental rights are the rights of the many and not just the few.

Question by OG: We would like to educate our readers on the difference between personal claims against Shell and collective claims (Ogoni as a people) against Shell? And kindly explain what is the historical background of the case - who instituted the suit, was it originally instituted by the plaintiffs as individuals, if yes, who and how did they contact the CCR, if no, why and when did it change to be an individual or group suit/claims against Shell?

Maria LaHood: The case was originally brought in 1996 by Ken Wiwa, Owens Wiwa, and Blessing Kpuinen against the parent companies of Shell, Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and Shell Transport and Trading Company.  In later years, other individuals joined the lawsuit: Karalolo Kogbara, Michael Tema Vizor, Lucky Doobee, Friday Nuate, Monday Gbokoo, David Kiobel, and James B. N-Nah.  In 2004, these ten plaintiffs also brought a suit against the Nigerian subsidiary of Shell, Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC); they also sued Brian Anderson, the former head of SPDC, when he was in New York in 2001.  Plaintiffs and their loved ones were human rights defenders who were detained, tortured and killed because of their vocal opposition to Shell’s devastation of Ogoni, and two others who were shot in their villages by the military (brought in by Shell) to suppress that opposition.  Plaintiffs brought these cases for their own injuries, and the harm done to their loved ones, with Shell’s complicity. 

The settlement that Plaintiffs agreed to this year only resolves their own claims against Shell – they did not negotiate on behalf of the Ogoni people, whose outstanding issues with Shell have yet to be resolved.  As Plaintiffs have said, this was one payment of the overall debt Shell owes, and is one step in the movement for justice and peace in Ogoni.  Plaintiffs did, however, want the resolution of their individual claims to provide some benefit to the Ogoni people, so they agreed to create a five million dollar Trust for public, educational and cultural purposes.

A separate case was brought by other plaintiffs in 2002, on their own behalf and as a class action on behalf of all other similarly situated Ogoni victimized by Shell in the 1990’s.  Because the court has not certified the case as a class action, it is currently on behalf of individual plaintiffs.  This case was not part of the settlement, and is currently waiting for a decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals regarding what legal claims can proceed.  

Question by OG: We are also interested to strongly establish the connection or link between the Out-of-Court Settlement and the broad case of the Ogoni people, and the implication of the victory for other oppressed communities, specifically, if you could kindly draw a relationship between the case of the Ogoni people and the victims of apartheid?

Maria LaHood: The Wiwa case shows that victims of human rights violations abroad can sue corporations in U.S. courts if the corporations have sufficient contacts here.  It shows that indigenous Nigerian villagers and others can stand up to one of the most powerful economic entities in the world – wealthier than most countries – and emerge triumphant.  Ogoni took their peaceful protests to the streets and their campaign around the globe and then plaintiffs continued that struggle in the courts in New York – and achieved at least some measure of justice and accountability.  Since the Wiwa case was brought in 1996, numerous other cases have been brought against multinational corporations by victims around the world.  Class actions have been brought in the same courts in New York by South African plaintiffs against several corporate defendants for aiding and abetting apartheid, torture, killing, and other international law violations.  These cases, filed in 2002 and 2003, have been back and forth between the district and appellate courts (as Wiwa had been), and are currently back in the Court of Appeals.  Wiwa shows that the struggle can be long and difficult, but that persistence has its rewards. 

Question by OG: We would appreciate if you educate us (briefly) on Aleins Tort Claims Act (ATCA) which was implored to sue Shell, and who can use the same piece of law?

Maria LaHood: ATCA, or the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), is a statute that was passed in 1789, and can be used by non-U.S. citizens to bring tort claims for damages against defendants as long as the defendants have systematic and continuous contacts with the U.S., or are served with the complaint in the U.S.  The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) has litigated many significant international human rights cases, including Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980), which established that the ATS grants federal courts jurisdiction to hear civil cases for violations of international law.  Since Filártiga, which was brought against a Paraguayan former government official in New York for torturing and killing a Paraguayan in Paraguay, cases have been brought against not only direct perpetrators, but also commanders and aiders and abettors, including corporations.  In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Filártiga line of cases, permitting ATS claims for violations of customary international law norms that are specific, universal, and obligatory.  Under the ATS, everyone - including every corporation - should be held to the same universal human rights standards. 

Question by OG: Finally, we wish to know to what level is the CCR involved in the planning and management of the Kiisi Trust Fund and what is the level of the preparation for take-off of the Trust?

Maria LaHood: There are currently three trustees responsible for administering the trust, which is in the process of being established.  CCR is not involved in managing it.