The rise of climate litigation is redefining how energy policy is defined and enforced on a global scale, with courts increasingly setting the parameters for climate action. Advisory proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) establish legal interpretations that extend well beyond national borders, influencing how governments regulate emissions, approve projects and manage natural resources.
For Africa, the implications are considerable. As the continent contributes less than 4% of global emissions, it faces growing pressure to align with legal standards largely shaped outside the region. Without greater participation in these procedures, African states risk seeing their climate obligations defined from outside – with direct consequences on industrialization, access to energy and investment flows.
In this context, the African Energy Chamber (AEC) decided to intervene in a historic consultative procedure before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The request aims to obtain the status offriend of the court in a case brought by the Pan-African Union of Lawyers, which aims to define the climate obligations of states under the African Charter.
This case reflects a broader jurisprudential shift. Recent and ongoing proceedings build on previous judgments such as Social and Economic Rights Action Center c. Nigeria et Ivorian League of Human Rights c. Côte d’Ivoirewhich established environmental protection as an enforceable legal obligation while affirming the need to preserve broader socio-economic rights. Together, these decisions expand the scope of climate-related obligations in all jurisdictions.
At the global level, ICJ and ITLOS advisory opinions emphasize that states must exercise due diligence to prevent significant environmental and climate damage – thereby setting clearer expectations for the interpretation of climate obligations in international law. While these interpretations do not go as far as banning the exploitation of fossil fuels, they introduce stricter requirements in matters of environmental monitoring, regulatory enforcement and long-term climate risk management.
This trend is already affecting the financing of oil and gas projects across Africa. Banks and insurers are increasingly cautious about supporting high-emissions infrastructure, citing reputational and legal risks. For example, Standard Chartered refused to finance the $5 billion East African oil pipeline due to pressure from civil society and climate concerns. These cautious positions make it more difficult to obtain loans for large upstream projects, thereby preventing some discoveries from reaching the final investment decision (FID). In Nigeria, the development of marginal deposits has stalled despite proven reserves, and refinery expansions that could improve local energy security are struggling to attract financing. To fill these gaps, African initiatives such as the African Energy Bank are emerging, reflecting a reorientation of financial flows in response to climate and regulatory risks.
As a result, the continent’s capacity to increase production and meet energy demand is limited. Projects with strong fundamentals may face delays, the risk of stranded assets or uncertainty regarding approvals. Downstream and gas-to-electricity conversion projects – essential for local consumption – are also struggling to find financing, even as climate and legal frameworks evolve. While institutions such as Afreximbank have guaranteed $2.5 billion for the Dangote oil refinery in Nigeria, upstream oil and gas financing remains fragmented in the face of global climate obligations and the risk of litigation.
In South Africa, the Climate Change Act (2024) aligns national legislation with international climate commitments, and recent litigation – including a Supreme Court of Appeal decision invalidating the authorization of a gas plant due to insufficient environmental assessment – shows the extent to which the courts are examining energy projects more and more carefully.
This development redefines risks for investors. The broadening of legal interpretations – including the potential classification of climate inaction as an internationally wrongful act – increases the exposure of states and private operators. Projects that fail to meet evolving standards may face financing hurdles, delays or the risk of stranded assets, while governments may face investor-state disputes if regulatory changes affect the viability of projects.
At the same time, these legal developments are reshaping geopolitics. African states are relying on climate-related legal findings to strengthen their demands for climate finance, debt relief and technology transfer. By framing climate damage as a legal liability rather than just a political issue, the continent gains negotiating power – but also subjects its national energy strategies to greater scrutiny.
In this context, the intervention of the AEC ensures that African priorities are represented in emerging legal standards. The Chamber advocates for a balanced interpretation that recognizes both environmental obligations and the right to development, particularly in a region where more than 600 million people do not have access to electricity. Diverging views remain strong, with environmental groups calling for stricter limits on fossil fuel expansion under human rights frameworks.
“If Africa leaves its energy future in the hands of foreign courts, we risk seeing policies designed for other continents applied here,†says NJ Ayuk, executive president of the AEC. “Climate litigation is not just a regulatory challenge: it affects the financing of our oil and gas sector. Banks are withdrawing, discoveries are not reaching the final investment decision stage and projects that could fuel our energy ambitions remain stalled. Africa must turn this challenge into an opportunity to set standards that protect the planet while ensuring that our people, resources and growth are not left behind. HAS”
The rise of climate disputes marks a decisive turning point, moving from political negotiation to legal application. For Africa, the stakes are clear: actively engage in the development of these frameworks or risk having to adapt to standards set elsewhere. It is now essential to ensure African representation in these processes, not only to align climate ambitions with economic growth and energy security, but also to secure the necessary financing so that the continent’s oil and gas sector can reach its full potential.
