Oceana plans not to go down easily. Who cares, as long as they go down...!
From 7 News Belize
http://www.7newsbelize.com/index.php#story1
OCEANA Loses Ground But Saves Face In Court
Justice Legall also granted an injunction retraining the Government from carrying out any parts of those contracts, so Oceana believed that they had won a first major round in the battle against offshore oil drilling.
Well, in May, GOB filed an appeal of this decision to the Court of Appeal, and they made an application to the Supreme Court to lift the injunction, which was finally heard to completion 10 days ago.
The position from GOB was that by granting the injunction, Justice Legall restrained them from policing the oil companies to make sure that they were following environmental guidelines. OCEANA countered that because the Government is the gate keeper of oil in the country, once they were restrained, the companies couldn’t do any exploration.
So today, after reviewing the case from both sides, Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin granted the application by GOB, and he lifted the injunction.
That’s a major upset because the claimants don’t get to enjoy the fruits of their judgment. 7News was there when the decision was handed down, and we asked both sides about the outcome and its significant.
Denny Barrow - Attorney for GOB
"The point which I have repeatedly made - you've heard Ms Matura and you've heard the opposition leader Francis Fonseca contradict what I have been stated which is that a declaration doesn't have any enforceable effect and this injunction and the Chief Justice said it at least bind the oil companies. Where we are is exactly where I said we are which is that the declarations were made - we are appealing that and we regard those declarations as having been with respect wrongfully made We think the declarations ought not to have been made in the circumstances. You do not make a declaration which will confuse people by pronouncing for instance a contract null and void and leave people who do not have the proper exposure to the law into thinking that that means it is quashed. Ms. Matura and Mr. Fonseca have both said that and that is perfectly wrong so this is the error of Justice Legall's judgment. It gives a wrong impression of what the situation truly is"
Godfrey Smith - Attorney for OCEANA, Belize
"The written decision and the perfected order - the Chief Justice had said will be handed down on Monday, essentially he has accepted the government's argument that if the injunction isn't halted then the government will suffer irreparable harm"
Denny Barrow
"It means that the ministry, the department, can now properly, freely and openly and in accordance with the PSA as well as with the accordance with the general law - regulate what is taking place so that they can ensure that what takes place is properly taking place and they can ensure that what the government wants, what the nation of Belize wants will take place without any interruption, without any uncertainty and without any doubt as to what can be done."
Godfrey Smith
"Our view is that on the evidence, a case had not been made out which was the job of the government to make out that it would suffer irreparable harm; that continues to be our view. We obviously need time to examine the judgment carefully but I am fairly certain that Audrey who is right here, that the instructions will be that we will need to appeal that decision, so that's where matters rest at this time."
Reporter
"Are we at the point where oil companies can go ahead and operate, and government can step in and regulate and monitor them? Are we right back to the beginning?"
Audrey Matura - Shepher - VP, OCEANA, Belize
"Yes we're right at the beginning in that sense, you're right to use it that way because you have to understand that the government's argument is that the injunction only affected them, we have always disputed that - there's absolutely no way. Why would you tell the parent what to do, what's right and wrong and they will leave the children to run around to do what they want - that's a situation we were faced with. Whether there was an injunction removed or not, we were always back at square one because here we have a government that has gone rogue, that has said that these companies can operate no matter what. Remember today's ruling doesn't affect anything on the ground; they have allowed everything to go ahead. Today’s ruling only eases the conscience of the government because they know that they have been allowing the companies to run rogue all along so this is just to give them a little push and the confidence they need to justify what we have deemed an unlawful, improper, irresponsible and reckless behavior from the start."
Godfrey Smith
"The oil companies who are already operating by their own admission can continue to operate and our position has always been that that presents a very serious risk of harm to the environment especially in light of Justice Legall's decision that he frowned on the evidence that there was a risk of harm to the environment in the absence of compliance with a petroleum act and the environmental act."
Audrey Matura -
"If this is the ruling of the court we will respect that decision but we know that there is still a legal recourse but this matter is still at the Supreme Court and we are yet to go to the Magistrate Courts It is not a done deal, you've seen us start this case over two years now and we battled it out every step of the way and we've won every step of the way except today. And this is just a side matter, this substantive matter will be at the court of appeal. So I don't want people to be disheartened, I'm surely not disheartened."
Godfrey Smith
"Frankly I am disappointed but that is the risk of litigation, you think you have a good strong case and judgments and because this case is such a high profile case of such great public importance - obviously there's a great degree of disappointment. As I said we usually take time to look at the written judgment to digest it and then if the client instructs us to appeal then we take it from there."
