Sinikka Henry, Sherlina Nageer and Andriska Thorington v Environmental Protection Agency and Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Ltd., 2022

‍Date filed: January 2022

Status: On appeal in the Court of Appeal.

The Legal Claims:

The case is brought by three women who claim that the EPA acted unlawfully when it ‘modified’ Esso’s environmental permit to allow Esso to flare gas. They ask the court to quash the ‘modified’ permit and to order the EPA to enforce the provisions of the previous permit to stop Esso from flaring and to require Esso to provide information about greenhouse gas pollution, venting, and various reports regarding the safety of Esso’s operations.

The Story of the Case:

The case was filed in January 2022 as a Fixed Date Application with an Affidavit in support. By an Order, the Chief Justice accepted the Applicants’ objections and refused to allow the Attorney-General to join.  By a separate Order the Chief Justice (Ag) added Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Ltd. as an Added Respondent.

Esso’s Affidavit in Defence admitted in paragraph 29 that Esso was flaring as a result of mechanical failure. The litigants’ response is here. See also Applicants’ submissions, Respondent’s Submissions, Applicants’ Submissions in Reply, Added Respondent’s submissions, and Applicants’ Submissions in Reply.

The matter was heard in May 2022. National law requires judges to give a decision within 120 days. The decision is long overdue and in breach of national law.

The Applicants’ lawyers wrote six letters to the acting Chief Justice requesting a decision. They wrote to the acting Chancellor asking her to intervene. There was no response. After 17 ½ months the acting Chief Justice Roxane George gave a decision dismissing the case.

According to satellite imagery, Esso continues to flare gas.