Source: http://www.mjeal-online.org/constitutions-the-environment-comparative-approaches-to-environmental-protection-and-the-struggle-to-translate-rights-into-enforcement/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 18:32:15+00:00

Document:
There have been efforts in Nigeria to find a right to a clean environment through the constitutional right to life and dignity and through international law, specifically the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. A Federal High Court refused to find such a right in Okpala v. Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC). The Court did not decide on the question of whether there is a right to a clean environment through the constitutional right to life and dignity, instead deciding that the Applicants could not sue on behalf of the community or in a representative capacity, restricting standing in fundamental rights cases to individuals bringing suits on their own behalf. In addition, the Court also refused to find an enforceable right to a clean and healthy environment through the African Charter, holding that the rights guaranteed under the African Charter were not covered within the definition of fundamental rights under the scope of Section 46(1) of the 1999Constitution, which gives citizens a right to sue for redress of a violation of fundamental rights.
 42 U.S.C. § (2012) §§ 4321–70m (2012).
 J.B. Ruhl, Keeping the Endangered Species Act Relevant,19 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol’y F. 275, 280 (2009).
 Louis J. Kotzé& Anél du Plessis, Some Brief Observations on Fifteen Years of Environmental Rights Jurisprudence in South Africa, 3 J. Ct. Innovation 157, 158 (2010).
 Kotzé& Plessis, supra note 25, at 163–64.
 SeePeggy Rodgers Kalas, Environmental Justice in India, 1 Asia-Pac. J. on Hum. Rts. & L. 97, 108 n.51 (2000).
 IndiaConst, pt. III, art. 21.
 Rural Litigation and Entitlement, Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh,AIR 1985 SC 652.
 See, e.g., L.K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan,AIR 1988 Raj. 2; Madhavi v. Thilakan,1988(2) Ker. L.T. 730; Kinkri Devi and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh,AIR 1988 HP 4.
 Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981SC746, 753.
 Kalas, supra note 40, at 109 n.54 (citing Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,(1978) 2 SCR 621, 620–21).
 Id. at 288–89 (citing Okpala v. Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC), No. FHC/PHC/C5/518/2006of 29September, 2006).

References: v. 
 art. 21
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.