The economic cost of natural disasters is rising sharply. Global losses from natural disasters reached about $320 billion in 2024, nearly 40% higher than the average of the previous decade.
Image: Freepik
AFRICA'S energy future risks being shaped by legal decisions made outside the continent, according to the African Energy Chamber (AEC), as a surge in climate litigation and international court advisory opinions begins to redefine how states regulate emissions, approve energy projects and assess investment risk.
“If Africa leaves its energy future to outside courts, we risk seeing policies designed for other continents applied here,” says NJ Ayuk, Executive Chairman of the African Energy Chamber. “Climate litigation is not just a regulatory challenge – it affects financing for our oil and gas sector. Banks are retreating, discoveries can’t reach FID and projects that could fuel our energy ambitions remain stalled.”
The warning comes as climate-related legal action accelerates globally, with advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) reinforcing states’ obligations to exercise due diligence in preventing environmental harm. While not banning fossil fuel development, these interpretations are tightening expectations around environmental oversight, regulatory approval processes and long-term climate risk management.
For Africa — which contributes less than 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions — the developments raise concerns that climate obligations are increasingly being defined in external legal forums, with implications for industrial policy, energy access and capital flows.
Against this backdrop, the AEC has applied to intervene as amicus curiae in advisory proceedings before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The case, initiated by the Pan African Lawyers Union, seeks to clarify state climate obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The Chamber argues that African states must be directly involved in shaping how climate obligations are interpreted, particularly given the continent’s development needs and the fact that more than 600 million people still lack access to electricity.
The evolving legal landscape builds on earlier African regional jurisprudence, including Social and Economic Rights Action Center v. Nigeria and Ivorian League of Human Rights v. Côte d’Ivoire. These rulings established environmental protection as an enforceable legal duty while also affirming the importance of safeguarding socioeconomic rights. Legal analysts say these principles are now being extended into broader climate-related interpretations.
At the global level, ICJ and ITLOS advisory proceedings are reinforcing the principle that states must prevent significant environmental harm through due diligence. While these opinions do not explicitly prohibit fossil fuel development, they are widely seen as increasing legal scrutiny of high-emission infrastructure and long-term carbon-intensive investments.
This shift is already influencing energy financing across Africa. Banks and insurers are becoming more cautious about funding fossil fuel projects due to reputational, regulatory and climate litigation risks. In several cases, this has contributed to delays or difficulties in reaching final investment decisions (FID) on major projects.
One widely cited example is Standard Chartered’s decision not to finance the proposed $5 billion East African Crude Oil Pipeline, a move attributed to climate-related concerns and external pressure from stakeholders.
In Nigeria, marginal oil field developments have stalled despite proven reserves, while refinery expansion projects have faced funding constraints. At the same time, new institutions such as the Africa Energy Bank are emerging to help bridge financing gaps for energy infrastructure.
Downstream and gas-to-power projects, often viewed as essential for domestic energy security, are also experiencing tighter financing conditions as global climate regulations evolve. However, development finance institutions such as Afreximbank have continued to support large-scale projects, including significant funding toward Nigeria’s Dangote Petroleum Refinery.
In South Africa, domestic climate law is also evolving. The Climate Change Act (2024) aligns national policy with international commitments, while recent court rulings have shown increasing judicial scrutiny of energy infrastructure approvals, including the invalidation of a gas power plant authorization due to insufficient environmental assessment.
Legal experts say these developments are reshaping both regulatory and investment risk. In some legal discussions, climate inaction is increasingly being framed as a potential “internationally wrongful act,” raising possible implications for state liability and investor-state disputes.