Africa needs stronger legal voice as climate-related litigation reshapes energy policy, says AEC

With climate-related litigation cases increasing globally, the AEC maintains that African institutions must play a stronger role to ensure fair and practical outcomes that fully reflect the continent’s development and energy needs.

What: African countries may risk having climate obligations defined from outside.

Why: African stakeholders are unevenly represented in the process of reshaping energy policies.

What next: Africa needs to use emerging legal trends to push for more climate finance, debt relief and technology transfer.

Climate-related litigation cases are redefining energy policies and their legal enforcement across the globe. As the African Energy Chamber (AEC) points out, courts are increasingly setting the parameters of international climate obligations in a rapidly evolving legal landscape.

According to the AEC, advisory proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) are shaping legal interpretations that go beyond national borders. These rulings influence how governments control emissions, approve projects and manage natural resources. However, uneven participation from African stakeholders in reshaping energy policies raises concerns that the outcome may not fully reflect the continent’s development and energy needs, says the Chamber.

Stronger representation

While Africa produces only a small share of global emissions, it remains the world’s most energy-poor region. Yet, the continent faces growing pressure to follow rules largely set elsewhere. Without stronger involvement in these processes, African countries risk having climate obligations defined from outside, which could affect their industrial growth, energy access and investment, says the Chamber.

“For Africa, the stakes are clear: engage actively in shaping these frameworks or risk adapting to standards set elsewhere,” the AEC noted in a media statement on April 9.

In this context, the AEC last week applied to participate in a major climate-related case as amicus curiae before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The case, initiated by the Pan African Lawyers Union, asks the Court to define the legal obligations of African states in addressing climate change under regional human rights frameworks.

“While the request underscores Africa’s vulnerability to climate impacts, it also raises critical questions about how such obligations could be interpreted in practice – particularly in relation to energy development, industrialisation and economic growth,” the AEC said at the time.

The Chamber’s involvement marks the start of a broader effort to inform, coordinate, and bring stakeholders across the continent together while supporting Africa’s right to develop its energy resources responsibly and sustainably.

At the global level, advisory opinions from the ICJ and ITLOS help clarify how climate obligations should be understood under international law, stressing that countries must exercise due diligence to avoid causing serious environmental and climate-related harm. According to the Chamber, these provisions set higher expectations for environmental oversight, regulatory enforcement and long-term climate risk management, while stopping short of banning fossil fuel development.

Legal scrutiny

The AEC warns that climate-related litigation, often backed by foreign NGOs, has increasingly targeted African energy projects, affecting the financing for oil and gas projects across the continent. As a result, banks and insurers are exercising more caution in backing high-emission projects, including the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) in Uganda and Tanzania, and gas developments in Mozambique.

Africa’s ability to expand hydrocarbon production and meet its growing energy demand often becomes constrained owing to risk-averse stances from financiers. Even projects with strong fundamentals may face delays, stranded asset risk or permit uncertainty, leaving some discoveries unable to reach a final investment decision (FID).

As the Chamber points out, upstream oil and gas finance remains fragmented amid global climate mandates and litigation risk. In Nigeria, marginal offshore field developments have stalled despite proven reserves, while in South Africa, environmental groups have successfully challenged and delayed several offshore exploration projects, including those involving Shell (LSE:SHEL), through lawsuits.

Downstream and gas-to-power projects, essential for domestic energy security and power generation, continue to face funding challenges as climate and legal frameworks evolve, bringing national law in line with international climate commitments. According to the AEC, recent court rulings in South Africa, including a decision by the Supreme Court of Appeal that overturned approval for a gas-to-power project, citing an inadequate environmental assessment, show that energy projects are now under closer legal scrutiny.

Turning challenges into opportunities

Changing legal interpretations are increasing risks for both governments and investors. If climate inaction is treated as a legal offence, projects that do not meet stricter standards could face delays, funding challenges or even become unviable. Governments may also face disputes with investors if policy changes affect projects.

At the same time, African countries are using these legal trends to push for more climate finance, debt relief and technology transfer. Within this landscape, the AEC advocates for a balanced approach that supports both environmental responsibility and the need for industrial development, especially given limited electricity access across the continent. “By framing climate harm as a legal liability rather than solely a political issue, the continent gains negotiating leverage – but also subjects domestic energy strategies to greater scrutiny,” says the Chamber.

According to the AEC’s executive chairman NJ Ayuk, if Africa leaves its energy future to outside courts, it risks seeing policies designed for other continents applied domestically. Ayuk maintains that climate-related litigation is not just a regulatory challenge for Africa – it affects financing for the oil and gas sector development across the continent.

“Banks are retreating, discoveries can’t reach FID and projects that could fuel our energy ambitions remain stalled,” he states. “Africa must turn this challenge into an opportunity to define standards that protect the planet while ensuring our people, our resources, and our growth are not left behind.”