Citing a conflict of interest surrounding two members of a panel, a court application has been filed by civil society activist Danuta Radzik challenging the hearing of an appeal of a decision not to require an impact survey for the proposed 300 MW gas to power plant.
The application filed on May 22nd targets the role of two members of the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB): Mahender Sharma who is the Head of the Guyana Energy Agency (GEA) and Joslyn McKenzie who is the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Natural Resources. The EAB presides over appeals of decisions made by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and conducted a highly controversial hearing in March over the EPA’s decision not to require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the gas to power plant.
It has been the argument of Radzik and others that Sharma and McKenzie should not have presided over the hearing as their substantive positions in the energy sector posed a flagrant conflict of interest. Sharma and McKenzie nevertheless participated in the hearing of the appeal on March 22 this year and a decision is still to be handed down.
In her application under the Judicial Review Act, Radzik is seeking a series of reliefs which would in essence quash the hearing on March 22.
According to document seen by the Sunday Stabroek, Radzik is seeking: A declaration that Sharma’s and McKenzie’s’ duties in their capacity as the Head of the Guyana Energy Agency, and Director of Guyana Power and Light Inc (GPL), and Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Natural Resources, respectively, directly and indirectly conflict with their duties as Chairman and Members of the Environmental Assessment Board in the matter of the EPA’s decision to waive an EIA for the Natural Gas Power Plant Project;
A declaration that the Respondents (Sharma and McKenzie) illegally took part in deliberations of the EAB with respect to the said matter;
An order that the Respondents declare their direct and indirect interest in their capacity as the Head of the Guyana Energy Agency, and Director of the GPL and the Ministry of Natural Resources;
An order that the Respon-dents’ taking part in deliberations and decisions of the Board with respect to the gas to power matter, be rendered void ab initio and of no legal effect, pursuant to section 8 of the Third Schedule to the Environmental Protection Act Cap. 20:05;
An order that all deliberations, hearings, submissions, and decisions taken by members of the EAB that include the Respon-dents are unlawful, null and void and of no legal effect, pursuant to section 8 of the Third Schedule to the Environmental Protection Act Cap. 20:05.
For weeks, questions had been raised about the propriety of the presence of Sharma and McKen-zie on the panel. Opposition had also come in the wake of general concerns that both the EPA and the EAB were overriding best practices and the law in granting approvals in oil industry matters.
At the EAB hearing at Cara Lodge on March 22, Sharma was questioned by several appellants including Vanda Radzik, Danuta Radzik, Elizabeth Deane-Hughes and Alfred Bhulai on whether he would recuse himself from the decision-making process. Sharma, however, refused to answer and instead urged appellants to make their presentations. One of the reasons given by the EPA to waive an impact assessment was that the proposed location for this project – West Bank Demerara – falls within the area of influence/footprint of an EPA-approved Gas to Energy Project (GTE) that was subjected to a comprehensive EIA, including a Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA). The CIA concluded that there will be no significant impacts from the combined activities/projects. But according to appellants, this information was not sufficient to make such a major decision.
Environment advocate, Simone Mangal-Joly had also written to President Irfaan Ali in March this year on the composition of the EAB.
“Despite requests for your attention to the matter of independence of the EAB, you have appointed a Board comprised entirely of government employees, two of whom have indisputable “direct” and “indirect” conflicts of interest. She said that this is prohibited under the Environmental Protection Act and adverted to the Third Sche-dule, Environmental Assessment Board, which states that: “Any member of the Board who has any interest directly or indirectly, in any matter before the Board – (a) Shall disclose the nature of his interest to the Board, and (b) shall not take part in any deliberation or decisions of the Board with respect to that matter,” the letter reminded.
Mangal-Joly noted that despite public complaints, the newly appointed members of the EAB rather than disclosing their conflicts of interest and recusing themselves, had proceeded with scheduling the public hearing for the waiver for the gas to energy project’s 300 MW power plant.
