Court refuses lawyer’s bid for extension to file response in matter against Environmental Board

Apr 06, 2024 Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News

---

Kaieteur News – The High Court on Thursday refused an application filed for extension of time, in the matter in which was filed by activist, Danuta Radzik to challenge the decision the Environmental Assessment Board’s (EAB’s) decision to uphold a waiver of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the two gas plants to be constructed at Wales, West Bank Demerara.

Radzik’s lawyer, Mohamed Ali’s application for time to file an affidavit in reply to the defence brought by the lawyer for the other side, Mr. Arud Gossai was dismissed by Justice Simone Ramlall on Thursday.

In her decision, Justice Ramlall noted that she found that the lawyer was disingenuous for claiming that he was unaware that the Court had considered the application for an extension of time to file the affidavit in defence. “It is quite alarming that Counsel would plead that he only became aware of such service on March 1 upon being informed by counsel for the respondent during the Court proceeding. The fact of the matter is that he did not dispute that service was affected at his chambers on the day of the filing.”

The judge noted therefore that the administrative blunder for counsel’s chambers do not suffice as good explanation for the tardiness or non-compliance in the scheme of the civil procedure rules.

Additionally, the judge noted when the matter was heard on March 1, the court drew to Ali’s attention its observation that no application in reply had been filed. She noted that the lawyer merely confirmed that this was so but did not file any application for leave. In the context of the facts, Justice Ramlall said there is no good explanation for them not filing the reply or for the belated application for extension of time to file without the leave of court. As a result, the judge refused the application and ordered that the lawyer to file submission on or before April 15, 2024.

In the case, Radzik is inter alia seeking an Order of Certiorari to quash the decision to exempt the gas facility from a thorough impact assessment. She argues that the decision of the EAB is flawed and/or contrary to, or in breach of the law.

Radzik is asking the Court to declare the decision a nullity; is void and of no legal effect; was made without or want of or in excess of jurisdiction; is ultra vires; is unreasonable or irrational, arbitrary, capricious or erroneous at law; is illegal; disproportionate; in defiance of logic; without any legal foundation or basis or authorization or authority; and/or contrary to or in breach of the provisions of the Act and/or the regulations.

In addition, the Court is being asked to issue an Order of Mandamus directed to the EAB, that the board reinstate the appeal against the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to exempt the gas facility from an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and to hold new hearings in compliance with the Environmental Protection Act.

The grounds of Radzik’s application outline that the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) is empowered by Section 18 of the Environmental Protection Act Cap. 20:05 to conduct hearings into appeals lodged.

The document notes further that the composition and operation of the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) is set out in the Third Schedule of the Environmental Protection Act, Cap. 20:05. The application outlined that, “…The disclosure of interest and recusal of any member of the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) is set out in the Section 8 of the third schedule of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) Cap. 20:05…”

It noted that, “The project is strategically aimed at utilizing piped natural gas from the Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSOs), which will be processed by a Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) facility which will generate lean gas that will be used to fuel a power plant that will generate and deliver electricity into GPL’s existing power grid. The completed project is expected to deliver every month 187.56 GWh of electricity into the Demerara Berbice Interconnected System to support Guyana’s current and projected economic development.”

Meanwhile, touching on the appointments of members of the EAB, the application seeks to highlight the conflict of interest by its members as a ground for the request.

According to the application, three public servants, i.e., Dr. Mahender Sharma, Head of the Guyana Energy Agency and member of the Board of Directors of the Guyana Power and Light Inc. (GPL), Mr. Joslyn McKenzie, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Natural Resources, and Dr. Garvin Cummings, Chief Meteorological Officer were appointed members of the EAB.

---

• brought, Environmental Board, lawyer, Wales, West bank Demerara.

---