Air Services Limited (ASL) and a number of other small domestic flight operators who have opposed the renaming of the Ogle Airport to the Eugene F Correia International Airport (EFCIA), continue to be aggrieved by the move on which they say they were not consulted.
During a hearing yesterday of an appeal they filed with the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), attorney Devindra Kissoon who represents the appellants said that his clients ought to have been consulted on the issue but this was never done, though promised.
Having lost their bid before the Guyana Court of Appeal back in 2016 to have the decision renaming the airport rescinded, the appellants are now hoping for success from the Trinidad-based court of last resort.
The position of the Attorney General (AG)—a respondent in the action is, however, that the decision for the name change was a result of the unanimous decision of the airport’s Board, and that the Minister of Public Infrastructure under whose purview aviation falls, was obliged to accept that decision.
Kissoon in his submissions has argued that the name-change gives the Correia Group an unfair business advantage over his clients who are small private operators whose livelihoods depend on the fair management and operation of the airport.
He said that historically, the relationship between Ogle Airport Inc (OAI)—the lessee which develops and manages the airport subject to government scrutiny, and the appellants, has been strained.
Kissoon said that this arises out of the fact that the majority shareholder of OAI is owned and controlled by the Correia Group of Companies which is a dominant player in the local domestic aviation airspace.
The lawyer said that Correia also competes with each of the aircraft operators for the domestic aviation space. Against this background he said that the appellants have repeatedly asserted that the Correia group through their dominance operates the airport for their benefit and control.
Kissoon advanced that while then Minister of Public Infrastructure, David Patterson had committed to consulting with the appellants regarding their complaints, this was not done.
Kissoon said that on September 19, 2015, then President David Granger unilaterally announced a proposal to rename the facility from Ogle International Airport to the Eugene F. Correia International Airport—a name which the lawyer argues fortified the dominance of the Correia Group in the domestic aviation space.
Counsel told the court that the announcement was met with a “large public outcry,” while adding that on October 14th, 2015, Chairman of OAI Michael Correia wrote the President requesting that the airport’s name be changed citing unanimous board approval.
Kissoon said that of the appellants, only Wings Aviation and Air Services Limited participated in the decision-making process and by letters dated November 5th, 2015 and October 23, 2015, they rescinded their approval
The other appellants he said, though affected by OAI’s decision did not participate in the decision-making process to request the name change but objected to the proposal.
Kissoon said that Patterson had promised that an independent legal review of the renaming of the airport would be undertaken and in so doing created a legitimate expectation that the appellants would be heard on the issue.
Before any meaningful consultation process was completed, however, Kissoon said that “the Government abandoned the promised consultations” and announced on April 4th, 2016 that the Government had decided to change the airport’s name.
Kissoon’s argument is that the fact that the appellants, who represented nine out of the 10 domestic aviation operators had an interest in renaming the airport and were affected by the decision, is sufficient to found a legitimate expectation of consultation; while adding that separate and apart from that, the importance of procedural fairness is preeminent and foundational to any exercise of administrative powers.
According to Kissoon, “evidence reveals that the Minister was aware of the potential procedural unfairness” and thus the need to consult the appellants while noting that the appellants at all times clearly identified their grievance, and by virtue of their market presence alone ought to have been afforded an opportunity to be consulted.
Kissoon argues that the airport renaming is an administrative act, simply requiring the Guyana Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) to revoke the name change and change the airport signage.
Against this background he said that the current government ought to properly consult with the appellants, and consider whether or not to effect the name change after conscientiously considering the appellants’ views.
Accordingly, Kissoon is asking the court to grant his clients’ appeal and to quash the decision permitting the name change.
Presenting submissions yesterday morning on behalf of the AG, Solicitor General (SG) Nigel Hawke in rebutting Kissoon’s contentions said that Patterson “was obliged to accept the bone fide representation” of the airport’s Board when it said that its decision was unanimous in relation to the name change.
Hawke submitted that the Board being a lawfully constituted one, all its members must be assumed to have acted in relation to their fiduciary duties when the decision was made, and thus there was no requirement in the Act or the lease for the Minister to have consulted with anyone regarding the Board’s unanimous decision.
“The Minister would have been taken to have acted arbitrarily if the Board did not sanction the name change,” Hawke said.
The SG then went on to add that the evidence “clearly suggest that OAI’s Board gave their sanction to the name change which underscores the fact that the Board held its consultation with its members and shareholders.”
On the issue of the creation of a legitimate expectation, Hawke said that none was created since the Minister had made no representation. He said that the name change was proposed by Granger and the Board took it under its consideration and gave its full support.
“The Minister was only required to address all concerns to the Board,” Hawke said.
The SG then submitted that in accordance with case law authority, with no representation having been made, no expectation could have been created.
He said that while the appellants seem to be asserting that the Minister ought to have intervened in the affairs of the Company to have the Board’s decision overturned, it is not within his (Patterson’s) legal authority “to go behind the bone fide decision of the Board on its agreement to the name change.”
Accordingly, Hawke said that the appellants’ appeal should be dismissed.
Following the hearing, the CCJ said that it will reserve its judgment which will be delivered at a date to be announced.
Apart from ASL, the other appellants are Roraima Airways Limited, Fenix Airways Inc, Hinterland Aviation Inc, Domestic Airways Inc, Wings Aviation Limited, Hopkinson Mining and Logistics Inc, National Air Transport Association Inc.
The Minister of Public Infrastructure and the GCAA have also been named respondents in the action.
The appeal is being heard by Justices Winston Anderson, Jacob Wit, Denys Barrow, Andrew Burgess and Peter Jamadar.
A majority of the operators who control around a third of the equity in OAI have always been opposed to the renaming. The operators maintain that the renaming will give an unfair advantage to the Correia group which is a major player in the company running the airport and operates Trans Guyana Airways.
The controversy had its origins on September 17th, 2015 when President Granger suggested the renaming while commissioning an aircraft for Trans Guyana Airways. Granger had said that he believed if the airport was renamed EFCIA, it would be paying tribute to the late aviator.
The now appellants, however, subsequently objected and put on record that they believed the name would give Trans Guyana Airways a marketing advantage as the Correia name is linked to that operation.
Expressing sentiments similar to that of the former president, however, Patterson had said that naming the airport after Eugene Correia transcends his political work as the decision also pays homage to a notable person of Portuguese descent.
