Former AG argues for FFOS in the Appeal Court

Today at the Court of Appeal, former Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, is expected to continue arguments appealing the ruling made by High Court Justice Nolan Bereaux in August 2002 to dismiss an application for judicial review filed by the organisation, Fishermen and Friends of the Sea (FFOS). On May 2002, FFOS filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Management Agency (EMA). FFOS was seeking to review the decision by the EMA to grant a Certificate of Environmental Clearnance (CEC) to bpTT to attach a 48-inch gas line into an already commissioned 36-inch line. bpTT was granted the CEC on  November 29, 2001, by the EMA for the offshore/onshore pipeline project. FFOS sought a declaration that the CEC was unlawfully issued and is null and void. FFOS further sought costs.

The line runs from Point Galeota to Point Fortin and runs cross-country from east to west and according to the application made by the FFOS, there are 110,000 people living along the route. The Central Statistical Office (CSO), according to the application, stated that 60 percent of the population there live below the poverty line. The FFOS contended that because of the additional pressure on the 36-inch line, there is the possibility of a rupture along the route which could cause severe injury or loss of lives to residents in South Trinidad as many residents in that area use direct and open fire to cook as well as burn rubbish in their backyards. The applicants stated that the EMA did not consider this risk, neither did it take into account all the factors relating to this project. When the matter came up for hearing in the Port-of-Spain First Civil Court on June 2002, attorneys for bpTT and the EMA argued that the application should be thrown out because it was filed out of time.

Maharaj, who was assisted by environmental expert Dr Rajan Ramlogan and Gregory Armorer, argued that the merits in an application for judicial review of the EMA’s decision to grant bpTT a CEC far outweighs the fact that the application may have been filed late. FFOS insisted that the matter should proceed if only because of a public interest element. Maharaj argued yesterday at the Court of Appeal that the applicant is entitled to be granted leave for judicial review because it is apparent from the record that where there is a prima facie failure by the EMA to follow mandatory proceedure laid down by Parliament, the jugde is bound to allow that issue to be resolved at a substantive hearing. Representing the EMA in this case is Martin Daly SC and Maxine Williams while bpTT is represented by Russell Martineau SC and Deborah Peake.