Dear Editor,
The case filed by two Guyanese vs. Exxon should be considered the case of the Guyanese People vs. Exxon. It is turning out to be of utmost importance. The constitution does state clearly the constitutional rights of the citizens of Guyana. Not only is there a requirement to protect the current generation, but also a clear requirement to safeguard the future of subsequent generations via ensuring a healthy environment. Furthermore, the constitution which is the supreme law of Guyana, must be upheld by all elected officials that have sworn to do so upon becoming Members of Parliament.
In reviewing Chapter II (Principles and bases of the political, economic and social system) of our Nation’s Constitution, Chapter II, 25 of the constitution states clearly, “Every citizen has a duty to participate in activities designed to improve the environment and protect the health of the nation”. In addition, Chapter II, 36 of the constitution reminds us, “The well-being of the nation depends upon preserving clean air, fertile soils, pure water and the rich diversity of plants, animals and eco-systems”. Although the constitution also calls for the development of the economy, as stated in Chapter II, 38 of the Constitution, it is clear that creating wealth while permanently destroying the environment’s health is not an acceptable and sustainable path to pursue. In addition, the environment takes precedence over destructive unsustainable economic development.
Furthermore, Chapter II, 38A (a), 38B and 39 (1) state respectively:
38A (a), “the State shall facilitate the engagement of citizens in activities designed to achieve their sustainable livelihoods”;
38B “The best interest of the child shall be the primary consideration in all judicial proceedings and decisions and in all matters concerning children”;
39 (1) “It is the duty of Parliament, the Government, the courts and all other public agencies to be guided in the discharge of their functions by the principles set out in this Chapter, and Parliament may provide for any of those principles to be enforceable in any court or tribunal”.
This substantial and extremely significant case will have an impact on all future generations of Guyanese. It is essential that every thinking Guyanese seriously consider the merits of this case. Some may argue that the gold mining industry also falls into this category and causes similar environmental damage as does oil & gas. It can be agreed that alternative methods of mining should be used to prevent the damage caused by the use of mercury in the gold industry. There are also ways to reverse the damage done thus far as a result of mercury usage, but prevention is better than a cure.
The key difference in this case is that the oil & gas industry can cause irreversible damage to a healthy environment. The threat is essentially existential. Meaning that the oil & gas industry poses a threat to Guyana’s future existence. As stated in a previous letter, our country can become uninhabitable to humans if climate change is not urgently addressed. Clearly we should not be adding to our own destruction.
Constitutionally, our leaders have an obligation to ensure our existence is perpetual. For this fundamental reason, ensuring our existence is of the highest priority within our Constitution. The outcome of this case, which one may classify as the Guyanese People vs. Exxon, is of utmost importance and every Guyanese should be paying close attention to how the court defends our right to exist.
As stated in the preamble of our Nation’s Constitution “May God Protect our People”.
Best regards,
Jamil Changlee
Chairman
The Cooperative Republicans of Guyana
