A disgraceful attempt by the EPA to manipulate public perception and discredit citizens
Dear Editor,
The Press Release published in the Guyana Chronicle and on Facebook on October 5, 2023, entitled: “Environmental Protection Agency, Press Release, Court Refuses Activist Request to Cancel EPA’s Permit for Gas to Energy Project” is less than honest, misleading, and betrays a lack of neutrality and genuine commitment to inclusive public participation that the very release claims to be fostering. This disgraceful attempt to manipulate public perception and undermine citizen’s participation should be retracted with a public apology.
The release omitted the vital truth of Justice Beharry’s ruling. The court found that the EPA’s decision to grant the permit to Exxon Mobil was “contrary to law and improper” since Esso Guyana [Exxon Mobil] had not submitted all the necessary documents which would prove they had a legal right or ability to conduct the project without the consent of the landowner or occupier” (as mentioned in paragraphs 63 and 64 of the Judgment).
However, the Judge decided not to grant the relief the Applicants sought, that is, to quash the permit, because of considerations like the significant fiscal expenditure already injected into the Gas to Energy pipeline, potential harm to innocent third parties, and potential negative impacts on Exxon Mobil and the State (Paragraphs 70 and 71 of the Judgement). Further, the court mentions that there is “no evidence that the Applicants were personally aggrieved by the EPA’s decision to grant a permit”, stating that the main matter the Applicants took issue with was the EPA’s failure to comply with the law (Paragraph 65 of the Judgement). Therefore, the court denied the reliefs sought.
The court does clarify that judicial review is not about public vindication but about remedying real injustices. The EPA’s public advertisement accurately quotes this sentiment but takes it out of context. The court is emphasizing that judicial review is not a tool for mere satisfaction but to address real and substantive injustices (as per Paragraph 65 of the Judgement).
The Judge does not appear to have been concerned with the fact that this is the third time the courts have found the EPA acting illegally in matters of environmental permits related to the same company, ExxonMobil, and that the very consistency in either being unwilling or unable to uphold the rule of law, even in the face of heightened public attention, could be a legitimate personal grievance for a rightminded citizen, and may constitute a substantive injustice. In 2020, Justice Jo Ann Barlow found that the EPA unlawfully issued a 20-year environmental permit when the law only allowed for a 5-year maximum. Just this year, in June, Justice Sandil Kissoon found that the EPA had abdicated its responsibilities by aiding and abetting Exxon Mobil to breach the conditions of a permit. To be clear, these are only instances of grievances that have come before the courts.
In the press release the EPA states that: “As the EPA commits to lawfully carrying out its functions, members of the public are encouraged to participate by making meaningful and constructive contributions, in good faith, to its decision-making processes.” Yet, the EPA used the judgment’s wording out of context to underscore that the relief sought was not granted because the activists were not “personally aggrieved” and that a judicial review should not be a means for “public satisfaction”, implying that the Applicants were not engaging in the exercise in “good faith”.
Further, it is extraordinary that the EPA would seek to spotlight the Judge’s view of what a judicial review should be used for when the EPA knows that the Environmental Appeals Tribunal for review of decisions regarding environmental permits has still not been constituted even though the Environmental Protection Act has been in effect since 1996, and despite multiple pleas to the President of Guyana to remedy this situation. In the absence of the Tribunal, citizens have no choice but to engage in costly and complex judicial reviews of decisions.
If the EPA truly cares about inclusive participation, it should put its energies towards doing its job and advocating for the immediate establishment of the Tribunal instead of betraying the public’s trust with this dishonest and obnoxious press release. The misrepresentations stand in stark contrast to the ethos of transparency and integrity that the EPA should embody.
The core mission of the EPA is not merely bureaucratic enforcement but, more critically, fostering an environment of collaboration and open dialogue with the public. Attempts to discredit or stifle citizens who rightfully seek clarity, transparency, and fairness are not just unbecoming of the EPA’s stature but are antithetical to its foundational mandate. In his capacity as Executive Director of the EPA, Kemraj Parsram bears the responsibility to steer the EPA away from these murky waters and toward the transparent and principled path it was always meant to tread.