Email

Print

But, in the end, this urgent hearing didn't take place because both sides agreed that in good faith US Capitol would delay its oil explorations for at least a couple of months. Is that a binding promise? Well, it depends on which side you asked, and that's what we tried to do today when the attorneys left the courtroom. Here's what they told us:

Michael Peyrefitte - Attorney for US Capital Energy
"When we got here this morning, the attorney for SATIM informed us that they would be withdrawing from the application for the interim injunction that was brought from the 19th of September. He approached us with the opportunity for us to withdraw the application. I don't want to comment too much about it but you would have to ask them as to why they did that. We were under the impression that what US Capital was doing was causing such irreparable harm that we had to have a hearing now but it worked out for us. US Capital continues its work as it is authorized to do by the government of Belize and that's their choice. You would have to ask Mr. Courtenay why they withdrew their application. From what we gleam from it, its an application to stop US Capital from drilling and exploring for oil because supposedly the government did not have the legal authority to grant permission to US Capital, we naturally disagree with that."

Gregorio Choq
"There was a discussion between councils for the claimant and the defendant and I believe that what happened was an equivalent to an undertaking that US Capital will not drill before November or December which from our perspective, we feel that pressing for an earlier date for the trial on the substantive claim would have been better for us to advance,"

Daniel Ortiz
"Is it before the court?"

Gregorio Choq
"I think it would be fool hearted of US Capital to proceed knowing that there is a pending date for the substantive trial."

Denys Barrow – Attorney for GOB Defendants
"Once the SATIM people were satisfied that drilling would not take place until sometime in October then they were comfortable with leaving things as they are, leaving US Capital to continue their preparation for drilling as opposed to actual drilling because as I saw implicit is that there isn't any damage that will be done. The substantive case has not yet been served, I'm told it has been filed but the indication in what we get in one of the affidavit, is that it is for two declarations, both declarations essentially, seeking to establish that it was wrong to give permission to explore for oil in the National Park. It was as well for an order, striking down the grant of permission and it was also for a perpetual and permanent injunction preventing drilling in the National Park or in the alternative, if they can't get that then an order commanding the government not to allow the permissions to proceed, to be acted upon before having first gotten the consent of the Maya communities and their leaders."

While we had the opportunity, we asked both side to explain the main complaint that SATIIM, and the Mayan Leaders intend to bring before the court why the injunction was so important. Here's how both sides explained it

Denys Barrow
"The substantive case now concerns National Park and who owns a national Park - it concerns the question that when a National park has been declared - what is the effect upon that of pre-existing rights? Two, if a declaration of a national park includes private lands, then what is the impact of that declaration upon the rights of the owner of the private lands. So these are some things which need to be addressed so it's a broader question than purely Maya customary rights because if you assume at its highest that the Maya have outright and perfect title to this land as Greg Choq said in his second affidavit - when the National Park was declared, the Maya people ceased conducting their traditional activities in the National park. So they respected that declaration and they took it at that time as an indication that they could no longer act in the National Park as if though it were regular community land. A number of larger issues will arise."

Eamon Courtenay - Attorney for Claimants
"The primary argument is that the National Park systems Act does not allow for commercial oil drilling within a National park - I think anybody who stops and asks themselves that if you designate a place to be a National Park, what type of activities go on in there. Obviously it is the maintaining the integrity of the environment, the ecosystems, the flora, the fauna etc. - if you look at the National Park Systems Act - it contemplates activities that are consistent with promoting the integrity of the environment and those eco-systems."

Reporter
"I know the oil company has said that they are going to drill probably in November and December. Will a decision be handed down in this hearing before that?"

Eamon Courtenay
"That is our hope and expectation, this is a matter that is purely law - there's no disagreement in evidence. We know that there's a National Park , we know that activities have been taking place in there - the question is if it can be done lawfully. Therefore, I feel that we would be able to put in all our submissions in good time for a decision before the end of the year and that is our hope."

The case continues in the Supreme Court on September 19.