Ramesh vows to continue fight against smelter
-Kimberly Mackhan
The Trinidad Guardian
Published: 6 Oct 2009
Senior counsel Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj will renew the fight against the construction of an aluminum smelter in south Trinidad following tomorrow’s resumption of a legal challenge into the decision from High Court Judge Justice Mira Dean-Armorer’s to halt the construct of the billion-dollar Alutrint project, in which government has a 60 per cent stake. “The basis of the Environmental Act is that in respect of environmental assessment and decision-making, the public do not only have a right to be consulted, but they have a right to participate and be involved in all of the environmental information. So in my view, this is a clear case of the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) having no case, but there are two sides to every coin and we have a Court of Appeal and then we have the Privy Council,” Maharaj said.
He was speaking at a press conference he held in the rotunda of the Red House on Sunday. He, along with attorney Vijaya Maharaj, would be representing the anti-smelter lobby group, the Rights Action Group (RAG). “You would see when I make my submission (on Thursday), I would refer to instances where the EMA states that the report could not be the basis of a proper decision. “The EMA collected all the information to itself and made a decision without the public consultation in accordance with Section 28.” On June 16, Justice Dean-Armorer delivered a 156-page judgment that made note of the lack of proper consultation between the EMA and the residents of La Brea, where Alutrint was constructing its aluminium smelter project.
Her verdict quashed the EMA’s decision to issue a certificate of environmental clearance (CEC) for the projects development. It also put a halt to the construct the billion-dollar aluminum smelter plant. With hundreds of millions of dollars invested into the project, Alutrint has retained queen’s counsel Keith Straker to challenge the judgement. “It may be that the EMA is asking the Court of Appeal to re-write the law, to re-write the Environmental Act and to go in a new direction with respect to environmental justice,” Maharaj said.
Grounds for EMA appeal:
In its appeal of Justice Dean-Armorer’s judgement, the EMA submitted that there is no specification in the Environment Act as to precisely when the EMA should submit the application the an EIA for public comment, except that it must be done before any CEC is issued by the EMA (Section 35(5). “Thus, there is no stipulation that the submission for public comment must take place either before the terms of reference is finalised, or while the EIA is being prepared, or after the EIA is completed and so on. “There is also no requirement that the EMA must conduct more than one period of public comment. All Section 35(5) requires is that the application be submitted for public comment.”
-Kimberly Mackhan
The Trinidad Guardian
Published: 6 Oct 2009
Senior counsel Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj will renew the fight against the construction of an aluminum smelter in south Trinidad following tomorrow’s resumption of a legal challenge into the decision from High Court Judge Justice Mira Dean-Armorer’s to halt the construct of the billion-dollar Alutrint project, in which government has a 60 per cent stake. “The basis of the Environmental Act is that in respect of environmental assessment and decision-making, the public do not only have a right to be consulted, but they have a right to participate and be involved in all of the environmental information. So in my view, this is a clear case of the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) having no case, but there are two sides to every coin and we have a Court of Appeal and then we have the Privy Council,” Maharaj said.
He was speaking at a press conference he held in the rotunda of the Red House on Sunday. He, along with attorney Vijaya Maharaj, would be representing the anti-smelter lobby group, the Rights Action Group (RAG). “You would see when I make my submission (on Thursday), I would refer to instances where the EMA states that the report could not be the basis of a proper decision. “The EMA collected all the information to itself and made a decision without the public consultation in accordance with Section 28.” On June 16, Justice Dean-Armorer delivered a 156-page judgment that made note of the lack of proper consultation between the EMA and the residents of La Brea, where Alutrint was constructing its aluminium smelter project.
Her verdict quashed the EMA’s decision to issue a certificate of environmental clearance (CEC) for the projects development. It also put a halt to the construct the billion-dollar aluminum smelter plant. With hundreds of millions of dollars invested into the project, Alutrint has retained queen’s counsel Keith Straker to challenge the judgement. “It may be that the EMA is asking the Court of Appeal to re-write the law, to re-write the Environmental Act and to go in a new direction with respect to environmental justice,” Maharaj said.
Grounds for EMA appeal:
In its appeal of Justice Dean-Armorer’s judgement, the EMA submitted that there is no specification in the Environment Act as to precisely when the EMA should submit the application the an EIA for public comment, except that it must be done before any CEC is issued by the EMA (Section 35(5). “Thus, there is no stipulation that the submission for public comment must take place either before the terms of reference is finalised, or while the EIA is being prepared, or after the EIA is completed and so on. “There is also no requirement that the EMA must conduct more than one period of public comment. All Section 35(5) requires is that the application be submitted for public comment.”
A new trend that is becoming increasingly problematic is gaining access to the home through stealing the remote garage door opener.
Posted by: vigilon | May 03, 2011 at 11:24