The Guyana Court of Appeal on Thursday 7th May, 2026 unanimously overturned Justice Sandil Kissoon’s Order for Exxon Mobil Guyana Limited to provide an unlimited guarantee for liability. The Court of Appeal also overturned Justice Kissoon’s Order that the Environmental Permit issued to Exxon Mobil be suspended until Exxon provided the unlimited guarantee.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory, Nareshwar Harnanan and Priya Seunarine- Beharry, held that Justice Kissoon fell into error when he held that Exxon’s liability under the Environmental Permit was unlimited in nature.
The Court further held that neither the Environmental Permit nor the Environmental Protection Agency Act made any provision or referred to an unlimited guarantee and that Justice Kissoon erred in seeking to substitute his own discretion and decision for that of the Environmental Protection Agency.
In this Appeal, the Attorney General sought to intervene in order to advance the legal position of the State inclusive of the State’s contractual obligations under the Agreement with Exxon Mobil but the Court of Appeal refused the application to intervene which resulted in an appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice. The CCJ agreed with the position articulated by the Attorney General that the Attorney General is the protector of the public’s interest and therefore must be heard for and on behalf of the State in a matter of such national importance.
As a result, the Attorney General was added as a party to the proceedings in the Court of Appeal.
At the Court of Appeal the Attorney General presented written and oral arguments highlighting several important issues including that fact that the Agreement with Exxon Mobil was by no means an ordinary contract and that this is an Agreement that generates hundreds of billions of dollars, which the Government uses in its budgetary allocations for the general development of Guyana and the public good, as is provided for by section 16 (2) (a) of the Natural Resources Fund Act, 2021. This singular contract in this one sector has catapulted Guyana’s economic growth rate from 5.4% to over 62.5%, ranking it among the largest-growing economy in the world.
The Attorney General also pointed out to the Court of Appeal that one of the primary issues to be determined by the Court was whether the Environmental Protection Act and (the Environmental Permit) required an unlimited Guarantee as was ordered by the Judge and that the Court will first have to determine whether such an animal exists in law. The Attorney General submitted that if such a Guarantee could not be provided, then the rights of the Government of Guyana under the contract may be permanently affected thereby bringing the contract practically to an end, resulting in immeasurable financial loss and damage to the State’s revenue stream (proprietary interest), the fiscal affairs of the State, national developmental agenda, and indeed, the public good.
It was further argued by the Attorney General that Parliament intended the State, as opposed to the Agency, to be the entity to which this financial assurance is made and that therefore, it was for the Government, and not the Court, to determine what assurance, if any, was required, its terms and conditions, and the effect of failure to provide such assurance. Further that the quantum, circumstances when necessary, and its terms and conditions, are matters which Parliament has vested exclusively within the functional domain of the Agency, the Government and the Permit Holder to determine.
The Attorney General argued strenuously that when the Judge ruled that the financial assurance required by the Permit was of an unlimited nature and ordered such assurance to be produced, he exceeded his jurisdiction and trespassed onto the territory of the Government, the EPA and the Permit Holder, who are the parties vested with the power to determine the nature and extent of this financial assurance, provided, of course, they do so in accordance with the Act. In other words, it was the function of the Judiciary to ensure that financial assurance is provided, but quantum and adequacy are matters exclusively for the Government, EPA, and the Permit Holder. That the Judge could not substitute his opinion for that of the decision-maker.
The Attorney General appeared in person and was also represented by Mr. Darshan Ramdhani, K.C.; Mr. Nigel Hawke, Solicitor General; Mr. Arudranauth Gossai; Ms. Shoshanna V. Lall, Deputy Solicitor General and Ms. Raeanna Clarke, Senior Legal Advisor.
The other parties to the appeal, the Environmental Protection Agency was represented by Mr. Sanjeev Datadin and Ms. Mohanie Anganoo; Exxon Mobil Guyana Limited was represented by Mr. Edward Luckhoo, S.C; Mr. Andrew Pollard, S.C. and Ms. Eleanor Luckhoo.
The Respondents (Applicants in the High Court) were represented by Mr. Tim Prudhoe, KC; Mr. Seenath Jairam, SC; Ms. Melinda Janki; Mrs. Abiola Wong-Inniss.