BEING dissatisfied with the ruling of the Acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire to dismiss an action against the Minister of Natural Resources, ExxonMobil’s subsidiaries and two of its partners, local activist Ramon Gaskin has moved to the appeal court to overturn the ruling.

Listed as respondents in the case are Minister of Natural Resources, Raphael Trotman; Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited, CNOOC Nexen Petroleum Guyana Ltd. (Nexen) and Hess Guyana Exploration Ltd (Hess).

Gaskin, who is represented by international lawyer Melinda Janki and Trinidad-based Guyanese Senior Counsel Seenath Jairam, had first challenged the state, more specifically the Minister of Natural Resources, for giving authorisation to both Nexen and Hess to conduct oil exploration in Guyana.

Gaskin had questioned the legality of the permit granted, explaining that the two companies were not issued separate licences; in fact, they are said to be covered by the environmental permits issued to ExxonMobil through its local subsidiary, Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited on June 15,2017.

But the activist highly disagrees, and as such is seeking to block the companies from proceeding with their exploration.

He was seeking an order of certiorari directing the Minister of Natural Resources to quash the granting of petroleum production licences (PPL) to the oil companies.

Gaskin was also seeking a further order prohibiting the said minister from granting a PPL to Hess Guyana Exploration LTD and CNOOC Nexen Petroleum Guyana Ltd, until an environmental authorisation is granted to the two companies in accordance with provisions of the Environmental Protection (EP) Act.

However on February 12, 2020, the CJ dismissed the application and stated that the PPL was properly issued. She also agreed that the EP was issued in relation to a project and it was not necessary for it to be issued to each company, which is a party to the PA for execution of the project.

She further agreed with submissions on behalf of the respondents that where liability is joint and several parties have jointly and individually promised to carry out the same promise or obligation, that there is only one obligation by which they are all bound.
Thus, the various instruments therefore clearly set out the obligations of the licensee which ensue that the EP is binding on all of them.

Gaskin has challenged the CJ’s decisions at the Court of Appeal for Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition against the respondents.

He is claiming that the judge erred in law by taking into account irrelevant and extraneous materials and thereby permitting herself to fall into grave error and coming to erroneous conclusions of her judgement.

“The learned judge misunderstood and/or did not consider sufficiently or at all, the nature, purport and effect of the evidence in the case as a whole and/or the applicable law and fell into serious error in ruling against the Appellant and/or Her Honour’s decision was unwarranted, unreasonable, irrational, unjustifiable, erroneous at law, disproportionate, harsh and/or oppressive by refusing the Appellant’s request for Administrative Orders and other relief by inter alia” the document read.

In 2018, application for the orders sought was initially refused by Justice Franklyn Holder, who ruled in favour of the oil companies.

Justice Holder’s decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed it. The case was then placed before the chief justice.