Derek Achong

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

A High Court judge has quashed the Min­istry of En­er­gy and En­er­gy In­dus­tries’ de­ci­sion to with­hold its in­ves­tiga­tive re­port on an in­dus­tri­al ac­ci­dent at Ni­Quan En­er­gy’s Pointe-a-Pierre plant. The ac­ci­dent re­sult­ed in the death of an em­ploy­ee from a third-par­ty con­trac­tor.

De­liv­er­ing a judg­ment on Fri­day, Jus­tice Ava­son Quin­lan-Williams up­held a ju­di­cial re­view law­suit brought by for­mer Massy En­er­gy En­gi­neered So­lu­tions Lim­it­ed (MEES) plant fit­ter Al­lan­lane Ramkissoon’s wid­ow, Sarah, against the min­istry.

Jus­tice Quin­lan-Williams ruled that the min­istry had not pre­sent­ed suf­fi­cient ev­i­dence to jus­ti­fy its de­ci­sion to de­ny her re­quest in late 2023.

She found that there was sig­nif­i­cant pub­lic in­ter­est war­rant­i­ng dis­clo­sure.

She said, “Dis­clo­sure of the re­port will il­lu­mi­nate the min­istry’s in­ves­tiga­tive process and its find­ings on the op­er­a­tions of Ni­Quan that led to cir­cum­stances sur­round­ing her hus­band’s death.”

“There is pub­lic in­ter­est in dis­clo­sure, as the re­port would in­di­cate how the min­istry, as reg­u­la­tor in the en­er­gy sec­tor un­der the Pe­tro­le­um Act, car­ries out its func­tions of en­force­ment and safe­ty ad­her­ence for the good of so­ci­ety,” she added.

While she quashed the de­ci­sion and agreed to is­sue a se­ries of de­c­la­ra­tions over the min­istry’s han­dling of the dis­clo­sure re­quest, Jus­tice Quin­lan-Williams did not an­nounce whether she or­dered the min­istry to re­con­sid­er its de­ci­sion based on the guid­ance she pro­vid­ed in the judg­ment or the au­to­mat­ic dis­clo­sure of the re­port. 

Guardian Me­dia un­der­stands that al­though Jus­tice Quin­lan-Williams promised to is­sue her full writ­ten judg­ment in the case af­ter de­liv­er­ing her oral rul­ing, it was not re­ceived by Sarah Ramkissoon’s lawyers, led by Anand Ram­lo­gan, SC, up to late yes­ter­day.

The in­ci­dent

The in­ci­dent oc­curred around 1 am on June 15, 2023, while Ramkissoon and his col­leagues were per­form­ing main­te­nance work on Ni­Quan’s plant. Ramkissoon, 35, a fa­ther of two from Bar­rack­pore, was re­port­ed­ly dis­con­nect­ing a ni­tro­gen hose from an in­jec­tion point when a fire ig­nit­ed and en­gulfed him.

Ramkissoon was re­moved on a stretch­er and was al­leged­ly made to sit on a chair in the car park while he wait­ed for the ar­rival of an am­bu­lance for close to an hour. 

He was tak­en to a pri­vate hos­pi­tal in San Fer­nan­do be­fore be­ing trans­ferred via air am­bu­lance to a hos­pi­tal in Bo­go­ta, Colom­bia, for spe­cial­ist med­ical care due to the sever­i­ty of his in­juries.

Ramkissoon even­tu­al­ly suc­cumbed to his in­juries on June 18, 2023.

The min­istry, un­der the tenure of for­mer en­er­gy min­is­ter and prime min­is­ter Stu­art Young, ini­ti­at­ed an in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to the in­ci­dent.

There were calls for the re­port to be made pub­lic, in­clud­ing from the Oil­field Work­ers’ Trade Union (OW­TU).

Ramkissoon’s wid­ow even­tu­al­ly made an of­fi­cial dis­clo­sure re­quest un­der the Free­dom of In­for­ma­tion Act (FOIA), as her lawyers claimed that it would as­sist in ad­vis­ing her on whether to pur­sue a neg­li­gence law­suit over what tran­spired.

When the min­istry even­tu­al­ly replied in late 2023, it claimed that the re­port was ex­empt from dis­clo­sure on sev­er­al grounds.

Min­istry crit­i­cised

In de­ter­min­ing the case, Jus­tice Quin­lan-Williams crit­i­cised the min­istry for re­spond­ing out­side of the 30-day dead­line un­der the FOIA.

“The court found the re­liance on the Christ­mas hol­i­days with­out more was a poor rea­son for breach­ing its du­ty to in­form the claimant as soon as prac­ti­ca­ble,” she said. 

“The de­fen­dant’s ev­i­dence did not sat­is­fy the court that their ap­proach was any­thing oth­er than lack­adaisi­cal,” she added. 

She al­so point­ed out the min­istry could not mere­ly claim that the re­port would af­fect the con­sti­tu­tion­al rights of in­di­vid­u­als and en­ti­ties to whom ad­verse find­ings were made.

“While this may be a fac­tor in the pub­lic in­ter­est, with­out more it can­not be the sole rea­son for re­fus­ing the claimant’s FOIA re­quest,” she said.

She al­so took is­sue with the min­istry re­ly­ing on Ni­Quan’s po­si­tion on the dis­clo­sure of an­oth­er re­port on a sep­a­rate non-fa­tal ac­ci­dent for deny­ing the re­quest made by Ramkissoon.

“Un­doubt­ed­ly, this is a far more se­ri­ous in­ci­dent and Ni­Quan should have ad­dressed its mind to that,” she said.

“It ap­pears to this court that the de­fen­dant’s un­will­ing­ness to dis­close the re­port arose through se­cre­cy and rea­sons of self-preser­va­tion, es­pe­cial­ly re­gard­ing the fact that the claimant is de­sirous of pur­su­ing lit­i­ga­tion,” she added.

Jus­tice Quin­lan-Williams al­so point­ed out that the min­istry’s of­fi­cials had a du­ty to seek the views of in­di­vid­u­als and en­ti­ties in the re­port be­fore com­plet­ing it.

“The min­istry can­not use a breach of their du­ty as an ex­cuse to keep the re­port se­cret un­der the guise of pub­lic in­ter­est,” she said.

She al­so ruled that the min­istry could not re­ly on the fact that the in­ci­dent was al­so probed by the Oc­cu­pa­tion­al Safe­ty and Health Agency (OS­HA).

“The fact that there is an­oth­er re­port is of no mo­ment,” she said.

Mooni­lal re­sponds

Con­tact­ed yes­ter­day, new­ly ap­point­ed En­er­gy and En­er­gy In­dus­tries Min­is­ter Dr Roodal Mooni­lal said he was shocked by the out­come of the case, which he de­scribed as a shame­ful abuse of pow­er.

“It is in­cred­i­ble that Stu­art Young would backpedal on his pub­lic promise and refuse to dis­close this al­leged re­port to the wid­ow who is sim­ply try­ing to get jus­tice for the death of her hus­band and fa­ther of her two chil­dren,” he said.

Young had in­di­cat­ed that the Gov­ern­ment hoped to share some find­ings once safe­ty clear­ance was achieved.

Not­ing that Ni­Quan was sup­port­ed by the for­mer Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment (PNM) ad­min­is­tra­tion, Mooni­lal said, “They were more con­cerned about ex­pos­ing Ni­Quan to pub­lic scruti­ny be­cause it would be yet an­oth­er PNM megapro­ject fail­ure.”

He promised to make fur­ther pub­lic state­ments on Ni­Quan’s debt to tax­pay­ers.

“Ni­Quan has burnt a hole in the bal­ance sheet of lo­cal banks and for­eign in­vestors to the detri­ment of the en­er­gy sec­tor and the econ­o­my,” he said.

“All of this un­der the watch of Stu­art Young, who should hang his head in shame and stop is­su­ing inane state­ments on en­er­gy mat­ters,” he added.

Mooni­lal gave the com­mit­ment to hold dis­cus­sions with the Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al to bring swift clo­sure to Ramkissoon’s case based on the judg­ment.

No re­sponse from Young

Young did not re­spond to a What­sApp mes­sage on the is­sue sent to his cell­phone seek­ing his views on the case. 

Ramkissoon’s wife was al­so rep­re­sent­ed by Kent Sam­lal, Jared Ja­groo, Natasha Bis­ram, and Aasha Ram­lal.

The min­istry was rep­re­sent­ed by Rus­sell Mar­tineau, SC, Ji­nai Chong Sing, Amaniy Ali, Lau­ra Per­sad, and Niki­ta Ali.