The applicants in the motion challenging the EPA’s grant of an environmental permit for the Gas-to-Energy (GTE) Project have taken consolation in a decision by the court that they were not “obstructionist” and they have lauded the judge for the timeliness with which her ruling was handed down.
While finding that the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue a permit to ExxonMobil for its GTE project was “contrary to law and improper,” High Court Judge Priya Sewnarine-Beharry last week refused the request to quash the permit.
Particularly, the Judge said that the Court had to have regard to public funds already expended and invested in the project.
The Judge said that a quashing order would disproportionately disadvantage ExxonMobil Guyana and the State by halting significant project development already underway.
In a release on Saturday, the unsuccessful applicants, Liz Deane-Hughes and Danuta Radzik, noted that Justice Sewnarine-Beharry ruled that at the time of the grant of the said permit, Exxon-Mobil’s subsidiary Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL) failed to comply with the law when it did not submit the relevant documents. “…it can be concluded therefore that the decision by the EPA to grant the permit to Esso Guyana was contrary to law and was improper.”
It was noted by the applicants that Justice Sewnarine-Beharry accepted their arguments that the miscellaneous material put before the Court did not show compliance with the law, and accordingly dismissed the arguments of the EPA, Esso, and the Attorney-General.
It was pointed out that the Attorney-General, Anil Nandlall had sought to convince the court that the applicants, Deane-Hughes and Radzik, were “obstructionists.” However, they said that the judge firmly rejected this accusation stating, “These proceedings raise important issues of compliance with the EPA Act and EPAR [EPA regulations]. The Applicants in seeking to vindicate the rule of law ought to be viewed as public benefactors and not meddlesome busybodies who have instituted these proceedings as obstructionist to the pipeline.”
The release noted that the EPA, Attorney-General and EEPGL, had argued that the Applicants had no standing to bring the case. In her rejection of this argument, the judge stated that the court remains resolute in the permissive application of standing in public interest litigation and cited wealth of case law including the recent case of Collins and Whyte v EPA and Esso, in which Justice Kissoon had rejected the archaic arguments on standing which had been put forward by the EPA and Esso.
The two Applicants also commended Justice Sewnarine-Beharry for delivering her decision in less than four weeks from the filing of final submissions on September 11. The duo posited that judicial review cases are “critical” to the rule of law and that delays in delivering decisions in judicial review cases are a “violation of the public right to upholding access to justice.” Therefore, as they see it, by delivering her decision so quickly the Justice Sewnarine-Beharry “has upheld access to justice.”
The judge declined to make the orders prayed for by the applicants, and despite holding that the EPA had acted unlawfully, she did not make the corresponding declaratory order. The judge also declined to quash the environmental permit stating, “A quashing order would disproportionately disadvantage Esso Guyana and the State by halting significant project development already underway.”
Deane-Hughes expressed her disappointment with the judge’s decision. “I am disappointed that the orders for a declaration and certiorari were not made. The rule of law ought to take priority over government plans for expenditure”.
