Latest update April 16th, 2026 12:40 AM
Exxon subsidiary, AG apply to join court case over gas-to-energy pipeline
Kaieteur News – Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited- EEPGL and the Attorney General of Guyana have applied to be added to the legal challenge against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), permit granted to ExxonMobil Guyana for the construction and operation a 12-inch natural gas pipeline.
Applicant: Elizabeth Deane-Hughes
The application was made last Thursday during an in-Chamber hearing of the matter before Justice Priya Sewnarine Beharry at the Georgetown High Court.
The decision as to whether the two parties will be made joinders to the matter is set to take place on 12 June 2023. Thereafter, the substantive matter will be set for 16 June 2023 for the submission of written arguments.
The pipeline is a component of the Guyana Government’s Gas-to-Energy (GTE) Project and was authorised by the EPA on November 25, 2022. Two citizens, Elizabeth Deane-Hughes and Vanda Radzik on March 27, 2023 filed the proceeding through their lawyers, Melinda Janki, Abiola Wong-Inniss and Joel Ross, seeking several reliefs inter alia a declaration the project is contrary to the environmental laws of Guyana.
The citizens are seeking an Order of Certiorari to quash the decision made by the EPA to award an Environmental Permit to EEPGL – ExxonMobil Guyana to undertake the GTE project activities, on the grounds inter alia that the decision was in breach of the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act (Cap. 20:05), and more particularly, the Environmental Protection (Authorisation) Regulations.
The citizens argue that the decision to grant the Permit to Exxon was “unauthorised and contrary to law, in excess of jurisdiction, failure to satisfy or observe conditions or procedures required by law, unreasonable, irregular or improper exercise of discretion, abuse of power, conflict with the policy of the Act, error of law (and) breach of/ omission to perform a duty.”
The applicants are therefore seeking a declaration that the respondent acted in breach of the Environmental Protection (Authorisation) Regulations; a declaration that the Permit is null, void and of no legal effect with costs and such further order the Court considers just. In their application to the High Court, Radzik and Deane-Hughes stated that Pursuant to Regulation 17 (2)(c)(iii) of the Environmental Protection (Authorisation) Regulations, an application for an environmental authorization must contain “proof that the applicant either owns the facility or has a lease or other agreement with the landowner or occupier to enable the applicant to conduct the activity without the consent of the landowner or occupier.”
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
- “unauthorised, Abiola Wong-Inniss, Authorisation, Melinda Janki, Priya Sewnarine Beharry, Radzik and Deane-Hughes stated that Pursuant
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
