Judges reserve ruling in highway appeal

THREE appellate court judges have reserved their ruling on whether environmental activist group Fishermen and Friends of the Sea (FFOS) will get a second chance to chal lenge the permission given to the State to start the multi-million-dollar Churchill-Roosevelt Highway extension to Manzanilla. They will give their decision on Friday or Monday of next week.

Justices Gregory Smith, Judith Jones and Andre des Vignes are being asked by the FFOS for permission to challenge the process used by the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) to grant a Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC) for the project.

In the lawsuit, the FFOS is challenging the process for granting a CEC for the $400 million phase one, between Cumuto and Guaico, claiming it was procedurally flawed and failed to consider alternative routes for the project which would have less impact on the environment and communities.

Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, who represents the FFOS, argued Tuesday that the EMA “got it wrong” and the process was “fundamentally flawed.”

FFOS has also argued the work was affecting the Aripo Savannas forest reserve, which was declared an environmentally sensitive area by the EMA in 2007.

Last month, Appeal Court Judge Peter Rajkumar granted an injunction halting the project until the determination of the appeal by FFOS against the dismissal of its lawsuit by Justice Kevin Ramcharan.

Ramcharan dismissed all the grounds of contention raised by the FFOS.

Rajkumar had found the case was arguable and merited consideration by the Court of Appeal.

Lawyers for the EMA, the Ministry of Works and Transport and Kallco argue that the group’s challenge came too late.

They said it fell seven days outside the three-month period stipulated in the Judicial Review Act.

Ramlogan said at the heart of the case was conservation of the environment and his client should not be punished or shut out from challenging the process because of seven days.

The State’s attorneys have also argued that stoppage of work at the site had a significant impact on the third-party rights of its contractors and also financial implications as well as prejudice to the public, who would be deprived of the use of the highway.

Valuable construction time lost during the dry season was also a consideration which, the State argued, the court should take into account.

They further said the contractor would not be able to be paid for completion of the segments of the highway in accordance with the anticipated schedule of $40 million of completed work per month.

“Third-party rights acquired as a result of a grant of a CEC, and financial implications, cannot be ignored,” they contend.

According to evidence advanced in the case, Kallco has already spent $3.4 million.