Douglas Mendes, SC, attorney for the Environmental Management Agency (EMA), submitted yesterday that the consultation process of the EMA, with respect to the construction of the 125,000 tonne smelter plant at La Brea, was comprehensive, detailed, responsive and fair.
Mendes said the EMA held two public-comment periods and a public consultation of its own, after Alutrint Limited had done its own consultation process. Mendes, leading Ian Benjamin, made his submissions, as the appeal began against the decision of Justice Mira Dean-Armorer who, on June 16, quashed the decision of the EMA to issue a certificate of environmental clearance. Mendes will conclude his submissions today. The appeal is being heard before Chief Justice Ivor Archie, Justice Wendell Kangaloo and Justice Allan Mendonca.
British Queen's Counsel, Keith Staker and Deborah Peake, SC, are appearing for Alutrint Limited; Russell Martineau, SC, Michael Quamina, and Stuart Young for the Attorney General, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, and Vijaya Maharaj for the Rights Action Group (RAG), Fyard Hosein, SC, and Rishi Dass for the Smelter Karavan and Rajendra Ramlogan for People United Respecting the Environment (PURE). Mendes said his client had appealed against three decisions, including the fact that the consultation process was flawed. He also said the judge accepted the submission of the environmental groups that contrary to the provisions of the terms of reference, the consultations held by Alutrint on November 9 and 14, 2005, were both held near to the end of the preparation of the environmental impact assessment (EIA); rather than one at the beginning and another at the end.
Mendes said the judge was wrong to entertain this complaint so long after it had become stale. He said the time to complain was at the time the consultations were held in November 2005. "The lapse of time remains unexplained and should be treated as a waiver of the right to complain, or alternatively, as a discretionary bar to relief. The EMA and Alutrint expended considerable time and expense in the compilation of data and the assessment of the environmental impact of the project, not to mention the intense periods of consultation with the public, which were held between November 2005 and April 2007." Mendes reminded the court that there is no general statutory obligation imposed on the EMA to hold public consultations with members of the public.
?At a glance
Justice Dean-Armorer, presiding in the Port-of-Spain High Court on June 16, granted an order of certiorari, quashing the decision of the EMA to issue a certificate of environmental clearance on April 2, 2007, to Alutrint.
Dean-Armorer said: "It is my view that the decision of the defendant, EMA, was procedurally irregular, irrational and made without regard to the relevant consideration. "That is to say, the consideration of the cumulative impact of the three related projects–the power plant, the aluminium complex and the port facility." Dean-Armorer remitted the matter to the EMA for consideration, meaning that the EMA must go over the entire process for construction of the smelter plant.