Appeal Court to decide on Exxon’s role in citizen’s challenge to Govt. for oil sector information

Apr 22, 2026 News

---

(Kaieteur News) – The Court of Appeal is set to hear and decide on the extent in which Exxon Mobil Guyana Limited (EMGL) and the Attorney General (AG) can participate in case brought by a citizen against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for oil sector information.

The proceedings originated from a claim brought by Sherlina Nageer by way of judicial review in relation to the agency’s conduct under the Environmental Protection Act, including its approach to environmental permitting and regulatory oversight in the context of petroleum operations.

Nageer had filed a claim to compel the EPA to disclose the insurance policy and parent/affiliate company guarantee lodged by Exxon in case of an oil spill. She sought copies of the policy and guarantee documents. In lieu of that, should the EPA not produce the documents, she had asked the court for a declaration to cancel Exxon’s permit for the Liza Phase 2 project and an order prohibiting EPA from issuing a replacement or one with weaker provisions. Her substantive claim was subsequently dismissed by high court judge Simone Ramlall, who found the claim lacked the evidentiary framework that would have allowed the court to properly exercise its judicial review jurisdiction.

During the proceedings, lawyers for Exxon and the AG applied to the high court and were joined as respondents.  However, Nageer’s legal team which comprised of lawyers Melinda Janki, Kings Counsel Tim Prudhoe and Anna-Kay Brown had argued that the claim was directed at the lawfulness of the agency’s action and therefore did not warrant the participation of Exxon or the AG. They appealed the decision in the full court. 

The full court in its reasoning, relied on the fact that both Exxon and the Attorney General had an interest in the outcome of the proceedings.

The court noted that ExxonMobil Guyana Limited, as the holder of the relevant environmental permit, and the attorney general, representing the state, had the legal basis to be joined as respondents since the reliefs sought by Nageer in the substantive matter are not only disclosures about, and orders to compel, the enforcement of conditions of the permit granted by the EPA to the Exxon but also orders cancelling the permit, prohibiting the renewal of the permit, prohibiting the issue of a new permit, and curtailing the terms on which any new permit may be issued.

The full court considered that this interest was sufficient to justify their participation as parties under section 13 of the Judicial Review Act and the Civil Procedure Rules.

At the same time, the full court addressed a separate argument concerning section 94 of the Petroleum Activities Act, which applies to disputes “arising out of petroleum operations.”

The court held that the proceedings concern the agency’s administrative functions under the Environmental Protection Act, rather than petroleum operations.

The result was that Exxon and the attorney general remained joined as respondents but the proceedings were characterised as public law proceedings focused on the agency’s regulatory duties, not operational disputes in the petroleum sector.

The matter which came up before the Court of Appeal Justices comprising Chancellor Roxanne George, Rishi Persaud, and Narweshar Harnanan on Tuesday concerns whether the full court’s approach to joinder was correct; it questioned whether the existence of an interest in the outcome of judicial review proceedings is sufficient to justify participation as a full respondent, or whether additional considerations should apply.

The issue before the court of appeal relates to the procedural structure of judicial review proceedings. It raises questions about the appropriate scope of party participation in public law cases the distinction between parties who are directly responsible for a decision and those who may be affected by its outcome; and how courts should manage proceedings involving regulatory decisions with wider economic or environmental implications. 

On Tuesday, the court granted leave to appeal to all parties, indicating that the issues raised warrant further consideration. The court directed that notices of appeal are to be filed by May 7, 2026, the record of appeal to be settled on May 21, 2026, and the settled record is to be filed by June 4, 2026.

At the hearing Nageer was represented by attorney Saevion David-Longe. The state was represented by lawyers attached to the chambers of Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC,

While ExxonMobil was represented by Edward Luckhoo SC, Andrew Pollard SC, Eleanor Luckhoo. The EPA had no legal representative.

---

• Appeal Court, Court of Appeal, Exxon Mobil Guyana, oil sector, Sherlina Nageer

---