HGH COURT Judge, Priya Sewnarine-Beharry has granted the Attorney General Anil Nandlall, S.C., and ExxonMobil, through its subsidiary, Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL), the status of a party in the ongoing legal proceedings to challenge the environmental permit granted to the gas-to-energy project.

The permit was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ExxonMobil Guyana (Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited- EEPGL) for the project and associated activities.

The court ruling comes in response to an application made by the Attorney General and EEPGL seeking to join the case.

The challenge was originally filed by Vanda Radzik and Elizabeth Hughes, who argued that at the time of the permit’s issuance on November 25, 2022, EEPGL did not possess the necessary permission to carry out activities on the designated lands for the gas pipeline route to the power plant.

In his application to be added as a party, Nandlall highlighted the substantial interest of the State in the decision being challenged. He added that a judgment quashing the permit would have adverse consequences for the Government of Guyana, as it is a party to multiple contracts related to the project.

The Attorney General stated that such a ruling could result in the government being in breach of existing construction contracts and incurring liabilities.

Against this backdrop, he argued that the public interest, fiscal interests of the State, and Guyana’s developmental trajectory for low-cost electricity and a lower cost of living would be disrupted.

Justice Sewnarine-Beharry conducted a hearing on May 11, 2023, where oral arguments were presented by the AG, counsel for the applicants, and EEPGL.

Following the hearing, the judge ordered the parties to submit written submissions by June 1, 2023.

On June 12, after reviewing the submissions, Justice Sewnarine-Beharry upheld the Attorney General’s arguments and ruled in favour of adding both the Attorney General and EEPGL as parties to the legal proceedings.

The judge acknowledged the significant public, economic, and pecuniary interests of the State in the project and recognised the Attorney General’s role as the guardian of the public interest.

“Given the State’s substantial public, economic and pecuniary interests in the GEP and its benefit to the Guyanese public, I find that the AG has demonstrated a sufficient interest to intervene in his capacity as guardian of the public interest. I find further that the AG, because of his unique position as the government’s principal legal advisor, may be privy to relevant facts and information (of which the Respondents/Applicants are in no position to speak) and may be able to offer a different, useful or practical perspective which this court ought to take into consideration in determining the issue raised.

“I find that this of itself counterbalances any delay or prejudice caused to the respondents/applicants. I therefore find that the AG ought to be given the opportunity to participate fully in the proceedings and place before the court, for its consideration, evidence which he believes will vindicate the State’s interest,” the judge said in her ruling.