Dear Editor,
Five years ago, Chatham House, in its infinite wisdom, dispatched a band of worthies (from Oxford and elsewhere) to a caucus at State House to lecture the APNU/AFC administration on the sanctity of contract. The opposition (now in power) was inexplicably excluded from the briefings. The APNU/AFC ministers would go on to use every opportunity to parrot this phrase when questioned about the ‘oil contract’ (the lamentably lop-sided 2016 Production Sharing Agreement with EEPGL).
What with Exxon, its partners, the ABCE representatives and even some locals all twittering on about the ‘sanctity of contract’, it was like taking a walk in the forest and being assailed by a pandemonium of parrots. By contrast, the 2018 opposition chirruped bravely at the time about holding Exxon to account. Fast forward to 2023. Another contract, a permit issued by the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) to EEPGL (Exxon’s local subsidiary) is in the news. A judge has delivered a ruling upholding the terms of the permit (that Exxon should provide unlimited Parent Company guarantees).
It really doesn’t take a legal genius to see that this ruling endorses the ‘sanctity’ of the original agreement. Yet the judge’s ruling has led to a magnificently Orwellian (or Harrisian) turn of events. A flurry of objections has emerged: somewhat predictably from Exxon, rather less predictably from those entrusted to lead this nation and, quite unfathomably, from the EPA itself. Gentlemen, has the script changed in the heat of the moment? Is there no ‘sanctity of contract’ anymore?
Sincerely,
Isabelle de Caires
