No leader has the authority to negotiate away individual rights. That is precisely what the currently undisclosed agreement with Destiny under the SSZ Act intends to do according to the limited information made available to the public.
Olivier Janssens CEO/Founder of Destiny appeared on ‘De Topiks’ by video link to be questioned by hosts Bankie and Yahsonn. This is a popular community program, gently, not aggressively, probing. There is widespread disbelief in the feasibility of obtaining enough water to carry out the architects plans for multiple lakes, ponds and swimming pools, and when Bankie asked who had said that this could be done the answer was ‘the engineers’. Since there was no follow up we are left with our disbelief. There were other obfuscations and contradictions. Janssens repeated several times that Destiny was fully transparent, and that the agreement was not yet signed and that we would see it when it came to Parliament. The inference to be drawn was that it was fully transparent because Parliament would give the opportunity to debate it. Yes. But. We all know that one man, who has himself been promoting Destiny as its chief salesman, is going to make sure that he and his two colleagues push that agreement through. Whatever the merits, the two opposition members cannot prevail. We know that this will happen in a matter of one or two days. This, for an agreement of such unsurpassed magnitude is not right and cannot stand. It is, of course, the reverse of transparent.
On September 26/7 2019 St Kitts Nevis acceded (bound the Federation to follow and implement as local law) to the Escazu Agreement, a ‘Regional Agreement on access to information, public participation and justice in environmental matters…’
Article 5 ‘ Each party shall ensure the public’s right of access to environmental information in its possession in accordance with the principle of maximum disclosure.’
Article 7 ‘…Each party shall promote the participation of the public in decision making processes…of public interest, such as land use planning, policies, strategies, plans, programs, rules and regulations which have or may have a significant impact on the environment.
‘ …shall adopt measures to ensure the public can participate in the decision making process from the early stages, so that due consideration can be given to the observations of the public thus contributing to the process. To that effect States shall provide the public with the necessary information in a clear timely and comprehensive manner to give effect to its right to participate in the decision making process.
Full transparency means that the potential agreement and all information, reports, studies, plans etc must be disclosed to the public and that they must be afforded sufficient time to consider it. For something on this scale it is absurd to suggest that presentation to Parliament fulfils the obligations under Escazu.
Premier Brantley said recently that we are close to finalising the terms of the project and that the comments and representations made by stakeholders have informed the position (of his Administration) and that, ideally, we want to sign off on this before year end. That would blatantly violate Escazu, and by-pass our own planning laws. Such stakeholder comments as have been made public are hostile or sceptically questioning. Given the nature of this scheme and the lack of information it could not be otherwise. Read the questions made publically by Charles Wilkin KC. All need answer before proceeding further.
We all support measures to bring about development in general, and appreciate that our leaders are constantly under pressure to produce. Destiny, however, is not suitable as can so plainly be seen by considering those questions and the need to ask them.
Politicians rarely admit that they are wrong but in this case they may have a small escape hatch if they care to use it. It is likely certain that Destiny brought the SSZ Act to the Attorney General’s Office, and said they required it. In deference to that request the Act was passed. Since then there have been legal opinions detailing serious flaws in that legislation. It is open to the AG, as an independent officer of the court, to make use of the Attorney General’s Reference (Constitutional Questions) Act to apply to the court to rule upon the constitutionality of the Act. This would be in everyone’s interest, and in his and the government’s interest to file before third parties do so. Someone or group of persons will apply and then the AG will have to decide if he is going to oppose or not. I suggest that it may be best for him to admit that there may be merit in the criticisms and that he wishes to have the court’s ruling. That would be the honorable course. To oppose will be a considerable expense for the State since the case may go all the way to the Privy Council. The developer should want a ruling now. A judgment following application for Judicial Review might oblige him to restore the area to what it was before he began.
Premier Brantley may remember September 27th 2019, when, as our then Foreign Minister, he presented the Instrument of Ratification ( of the Escazu Agreement ) at a brief signing ceremony held at UN Head Quarters. He above all others should feel bound by its terms and requirements.
Day by day the Great Bamboozle continues.
