In a recent development, the request made by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a stay of the High Court ruling ordering enforcement of the liability clause in permits issued to ExxonMobil Guyana for offshore oil operations has been firmly rejected. While the appeal itself is yet to be determined, this denial of the stay request raises significant concerns about the protection of environmental interests in Guyana.
Appeal Court Judge Rishi Persaud clarified that the matter at hand, pertaining to the EPA’s appeal, will be addressed promptly and concluded well before the High Court’s compliance deadline of June 10th. Judge Persaud emphasized that the stay request would only be examined if necessary, signaling a commitment to expediting the legal proceedings.
Attorney Sanjeev Datadin, representing the EPA, had sought to address the issue of the stay directly. However, Senior Counsel Seenath Jairam, representing the litigants who initiated action against the EPA, promptly objected to any grant of stay, arguing that the Agency lacked standing to make such a request. Jairam also contended that the EPA was in contempt of the High Court’s orders and urged the agency to comply with the ruling.
Darshan Ramdhani KC, also representing the EPA, joined the plea for a stay, highlighting the potential procedural complexities and costs that may arise if compliance were to extend beyond the specified deadline. Nevertheless, Judge Persaud remained resolute in not addressing the stay at the present time, assuring that it would be considered if the need arose.
It is important to note that the denial of the stay request does not imply a rejection of the appeal itself. The appeal, which challenges the High Court ruling mandating the enforcement of the liability clause, remains to be determined. The focus of the current proceedings is solely on evaluating the prospects of the EPA’s appeal succeeding.
The rejection of the stay request signifies a crucial step towards upholding the High Court’s ruling and reinforcing the importance of holding ExxonMobil’s affiliate, Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL), accountable for potential environmental harm caused by their operations. The original ruling highlighted EEPGL’s obligation to assume unlimited financial responsibility for any damages resulting from oil spills or other failures within the Stabroek Block.
