Glenn Lall stands ground on right to challenge Govt. over tax waivers to oil companies

Apr 24, 2022 News

By Rehanna Ramsay

Kaieteur News – When it comes to the legal challenge filed against the Government of Guyana in relation to the tax waivers it granted to ExxonMobil and its partners, Kaieteur News (KN) Publisher, Glenn Lall is standing his ground that he is within his right to challenge the Government in Court.In an affidavit, responding to ExxonMobil’s subsidiary, Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEEPGL), which is an added respondent in the matter, Lall rebutted the contention of whether he has the authority to bring such a case to the High Court.
The KN Publisher filed the case which seeks to overturn the expansive tax provisions granted by the government to the oil companies as part of the Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) for oil drilling exploration in the Stabroek Block.

Kaieteur News Publisher, Glenn Lall.

Among the grounds, Lall lists, as his main contention, that the provisions of the agreement violate the Petroleum Act, by purporting to extend production sharing concessions to persons other than those licensed.
Against this background, he argues that any exemptions referred to in Article 15 of the Petroleum Exploration and Production Act, purporting to extend concessions to persons other than the licensees is not consistent with the provisions of the Act.
In response, EEPGL had accused the newspaper publisher of brazenly approaching the Court, and without jurisdiction, is prying into a matter that does not concern or have any personal effects on his wellbeing.
However, in an affidavit filed this week, in rebuttal to EEPGL’s claims, Lall held that as a public-spirited citizen, taxpayer and newspaper publisher, he ought to be allowed to seek declaratory reliefs where there is a serious issue of public importance.
He said, “I have been advised by my attorney-at-law and verily believe that in the case of R. v Felixs towe Justices Ex. p. Leigh, the press has been described as the guardians and watch-dogs of the public interest in the proper administration of justice, and allowed to seek review of decisions of magistrates’ courts and examining justices.”
Lall continued, “I verily believe that the agreement and Order 10 of 2016 [betwixt the government and the oil companies] would lead automatically to excessive fiscal losses… I am not a busybody but a public-spirited taxpayer seeking relief from the Court touching and concerning the law.”
Further, the publisher contends that as a citizen, who has a sincere concern for constitutional issues, he “ought to be allowed to challenge the lawfulness of the Agreement entered into between the Contractor and the Minister.”
As a businessman, newspaper publisher and taxpayer of Guyana, Lall held that he has both the capacity and the legal standing to bring the present proceedings in his own name.
Lall held too while the Court is of the opinion that the matter should have been started by Judicial Review and not by Regular Jurisdiction that it is not fatal to his case “since the Court has the power to convert the action to a Judicial Review matter as provided under the Civil Procedure Rules 2016.”
He continued: “The Constitution of Guyana and the Judicial Review Act broadly provide me with the right to make this application for an interpretation by the Court of whether the concessions given to expatriate employees under Article 15.12(ii) of the Petroleum Agreement are discriminatory of local employees.
The Court is entitled to entertain public interest litigation provided the litigation is bona fide, arguable with sufficient merit to have a real and not fanciful prospect of success, grounded in a legitimate and concrete public interest.”
According to Lall too, Article 149(3) of the Constitution is misconstrued by EEPGL, as the Article provides for a positive discrimination by the state in favour of Guyanese.
He held that expatriate employees of the Contractor, affiliated companies and/or non-resident sub-Contractors are non-Guyanese benefiting from concessions of the state not afforded to Guyanese, is a direct reference to the classifications of “place of origin” as one of the grounds for discrimination enumerated in Article 149(2).
He rebutted the contention by EEPGL that the Prevention of Discrimination Act provides for matters only constrained to employer and employee who are in an employment relationship.
“I am further advised and verily believe…an Act to “provide for the elimination of discrimination in employment, training, recruitment and membership of professional bodies and the promotion or equal remuneration to men and women in employment who perform work of equal value, and for matters connected therewith,” said Lall.
The applicant said, as it relates to the Minister Responsible for Finance, his actions violated Section 51 of the Petroleum Exploration and Production Act and the Financial Administration [and Audit] Act.
The Minister Responsible for Finance is empowered by virtue of Section 51 of the Petroleum Exploration and Production Act to grant concessions and other tax relief, but only those subject to the provisions of a tax act.
In response to the EEPGL’s contention that he should have brought the actions sooner but sat on his hands for five years after the deal was made with the government, Lall explained that the agreement was only made public approximately 18 months after signing.
“I maintain that I sought but was unable to obtain legal representation, and that financial constraints prevented an earlier action from being filed. Further, I will contend that several local and international reports were brought to light and I was hoping that renegotiation would settle this unfair contract for the State’s most valuable natural resource,” Lall said.