FINDING that the case lacked evidence, High Court Judge, Priya Sewnarine-Beharry, dismissed the challenge to the environmental permit granted to the gas-to-energy project, ruling that “no good to the public” can be done by granting its relief.

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 challenge was 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 her ruling, Justice Sewnarine-Beharry found that the applicants have not cogently articulated what real or substantial public wrong occurred to them or the wide Guyanese populace upon the grant of the environmental permit facility, which would justify quashing the decision of the EPA.
“Cognisance must be paid to the fact that significant fiscal expenditure has been injected into the Gas to Energy pipeline. A quashing order would disproportionately disadvantage Esso Guyana and the State by halting significant project development already underway,” she said in her ruling.
The Judge pointed out that it may also have an unintended consequence of impacting innocent third parties to the project development, all while proving to be empty threat in the way of substantive relief for the Applicants

“It is upon a delicate balancing exercise, that I am of the view that no good to the public can be done by granting the reliefs sought in the Amended Fixed Date Application,” the Judge said.

She added that it can be concluded therefore that the decision by the EPA to grant the permit to Esso Guyana was “contrary to law and improper”. The Judge pointed out that in the present case, there is no evidence that the Applicants were personally aggrieved by the EPA’s decision to grant a permit to Esso Guyana.
Previously, Attorney General Anil Nandlall, S.C. had contended that a judgement 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.