In a ruling issued on Wednesday, the Court of Appeal (CoA) upheld a decision by acting Chief Justice Roxane George, SC, that Hess Guyana Exploration Ltd and CNOOC Nexen Petroleum Guyana Ltd do not need separate environmental licences since they are covered under the one granted to ExxonMobil’s local subsidiary, Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited.
The appeal was brought by activist Ramon Gaskin against the decision of the Chief Justice that was given in February 2020.
Gaskin had sought orders quashing the decision of former Natural Resources Minister Raphael Trotman to issue a petroleum production licence to the three companies Esso, Hess, and CNOOC to produce petroleum, as only Esso had applied for and obtained an environmental permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the Liza 1 Stabroek Block oil operations.
Esso as the operator of the Block and petroleum operations had obtained the permit from the EPA. It had then “farmed-out” interests in the Block to Hess and CNOOC which had joined it as investors in the petroleum operations. Gaskin had challenged the then Minister’s decision to grant the licence to the three companies as he complained that only Esso had a permit.
Gaskin contended that all three companies had to have obtained a permit or permits. As Esso had obtained its permit first, this would have meant that an additional permit or permits would have had to be applied for and obtained by Hess and CNOOC. The Chief Justice after hearing arguments from the Minister and the companies, had upheld the submissions by counsel for the Minister and the companies, as she ruled that the Environmental Protection Act required that a permit must be obtained for each project; but there need not be more than one permit per project as permits were issued for projects, and not for the persons undertaking them.
Gaskin had also complained that the Chief Justice had taken too long to give her decision (at the time Her Honour had been presiding over the No-confidence Motion cases and the further litigation that arose from those cases) and had infringed the provisions of the Time Limits for Judicial Decisions Act, which fixed a certain time for Judges to give decisions in the High Court.
The Minister and the companies had argued that the provisions of the Act were directory and not mandatory (non-compliance did not result in the decisions being invalidated).
In upholding the CJ’s decision, the CoA consisting of acting Chancellor of the Judiciary Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards, and Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud, ruled that the Environmental Protection Act required that every project must have a permit issued for it.
They found that under the Act, permits were issued for projects, and not for the developers who promoted the projects. They ruled that the Liza 1 project had a permit issued for it, and therefore there was no breach of the Environmental Protection Act.
They also ruled that the provisions of the Time Limits for Judicial Decisions Act were directory and therefore the Chief Justice’s decision was not invalidated.
Gaskin was represented by Seenath Jairam, SC, and lawyers Melinda Janki and Ron Motilall.
The Minister was represented by Edward Luckhoo, SC, and Attorney-at-Law Eleanor Luckhoo, while the three companies Esso, Hess, and CNOOC were represented by Andrew Pollard, SC, and Attorneys-at-Law Nigel Hughes and Ashley Henry. Gaskin has indicated he will seek further recourse at the Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
