CCJ rejects challenge to renaming of Ogle airport

-says consultation occurred

 The Eugene F. Correia International Airport
The Eugene F. Correia International Airport

A ruling handed down yesterday by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has rejected a challenge to the renaming of the Ogle Airport to the Eugene F Correia International Airport (EFCIA).

The court found that former Minister of Public Infrastructure, David Patterson did consult with domestic flight operators on the decision.

In a ruling delivered by the Trinidad-based court of last resort, the CCJ concluded that the duty to consult in this case related to the simple question of whether the proposed new name should be approved or not.

On this point, Justice Denys Barrow who read the judgment of the court noted that the appellants were able to meet with the then minister and discuss the name-change among other issues, following which they also provided a written brief to him, of all the issues discussed, including, the name change. 

The court noted that in that brief, the submission in relation to the renaming required nothing more than to leave Ogle Airport name as it was.

Having lost their bid before the Guyana Court of Appeal back in 2016 to have the decision renaming the airport rescinded, Air Services Limited (ASL) and a number of other small domestic flight operators had appealed to the CCJ.

Their contention was that they were not consulted on the decision to rename the airport.

Attorney Devindra Kissoon by whom they were represented, had argued that his clients ought to have been consulted on the issue but this was never done, though promised.

The controversy had its origins on September 17th, 2015 when then President David Granger suggested the renaming while commissioning an aircraft for Trans Guyana Airways. Granger had said that he believed if the airport was renamed EFCIA, it would be paying tribute to the late aviator.

The appellants, however, subsequently objected and put on record that they believed the name would give Trans Guyana Air-ways a marketing advantage as the Correia name is linked to that operation.

Kissoon had advanced that the name-change gives the Correia Group an unfair business advantage over his clients who are small private operators whose livelihoods depend on the fair management and operation of the airport.

He contended that the name-change fortified the dominance of the Correia Group in the domestic aviation space.

Justice Barrow noted in the court’s judgment yesterday, however, that the appellants had provided nothing which suggested that the Minister would not have understood the nature and substance of their objection.

As a matter of fact, the Court said it found that the “Minister took their concerns seriously enough that he commissioned a legal review of the lease” of the airport.

The Court held that in the circumstances, “there was no need for further consultation as advanced by the appellants,” while adding that this was a case where the appellants disagreed with the merits of the Minister’s decision.

This, the Court said, is common place, for which the law gives no remedy.

In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Peter Jamadar emphasized that the duty of the Minister to consult is rooted in the Constitution, distinct from any procedural rights based on other legal sources.

The judge thus held the view that, that constitutional entitlement was something separately confirming the existence of the right to be consulted.

The appeal was heard by Justices Barrow and Jamadar, along with Jus-tices Jacob Wit, Andrew Burgess and Winston Anderson.

Counsel for the appellants had said that historically, the relationship between Ogle Airport Inc (OAI)—the lessee which develops and manages the airport subject to government scrutiny, and the appellants, has been strained.

Kissoon said that this had arisen out of the fact that the majority shareholder of OAI is owned and controlled by the Correia Group of Companies which is a dominant player in the local domestic aviation airspace.

The lawyer said that Correia also competes with each of the aircraft operators for the domestic aviation space. Against this background he had said that the appellants had repeatedly asserted that the Correia group through their dominance operates the airport for their benefit and control.

The position of the Attorney General (AG)—a respondent in the action was, however, that the decision for the name change was a result of the unanimous decision of the airport’s Board, and that the Minister of Public Infrastructure under whose purview aviation falls, was obliged to accept that decision.

In his submissions on behalf of the AG, Solicitor General (SG) Nigel Hawke in rebutting Kissoon’s contentions had said that Patterson “was obliged to accept the bone fide representation” of the airport’s Board when it said that its decision was unanimous in relation to the name change.

Hawke had submitted that the Board being a lawfully constituted one, all its members must be assumed to have acted in relation to their fiduciary duties when the decision was made, and thus there was no requirement in the Act or the lease for the Minister to have consulted with anyone regarding the Board’s unanimous decision.

“The Minister would have been taken to have acted arbitrarily if the Board did not sanction the name change,” Hawke had said.

The SG had then gone on to add that the evidence “clearly suggest that OAI’s Board gave their sanction to the name change which underscores the fact that the Board held its consultation with its members and shareholders.”

Apart from ASL, the other appellants were Roraima Airways Limited, Fenix Airways Inc, Hinterland Aviation Inc, Domestic Airways Inc, Wings Aviation Limited, Hopkinson Mining and Logistics Inc, National Air Transport Association Inc.