Environmentalists and a group of Lamu residents have suffered a
blow after a judge in Malindi declined to hear a case seeking to stop
the establishment of a coal plant.
Mr Okiya Omtatah,
supported by the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights among other
bodies, wanted the court to issue a temporary order prohibiting Kenya
Power, Amu Power Company and Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) from
approving the Sh200 billion plant.
Mr Omtatah also
wanted the court to suspend the Environmental Impact Assessment Licence
for the power plant until the Energy ministry produces a copy of the
power purchase agreement, signed between the government and Amu.
He
sought the details of any loans or guarantees precipitating the
agreement and for the court to determine under what circumstances the
licence was issued especially after Mr Joseph Ng’ang’a, the former
director-general of ERC, had declined to issue it.
The
court was told that the deal between the government and Amu was for the
company to produce 1,050MW of coal fired power plant in Manda, Lamu
County.
Mr Omtatah told the court the 25-year agreement
commits Kenyan taxpayers to pay about Sh36 billion per year as capacity
charges for the plant. He argued that the deal was a scandal of
monumental proportions, which does not make sense because there is
already an overproduction of electricity in Kenya.
He
said geothermal, hydro, solar, wind and biomass energy have hardly been
tapped, adding that there is no justification for setting up the highly
polluting coal fired power plant in Lamu or anywhere in Kenya.
The
activist said the Environmental Impact Assessment report upon which the
licence was granted was faulty because it was prepared by an expert who
was an agent of Amu therefore bringing about a conflict of interest. He
said the report was prepared by Kurrent Technologies Ltd, appointed by
Amu.
Justice
James Olola said Save Lamu, a non-governmental organisation, lodged an
objection against the issuance of the power generation licence by the
ERC, but the case was dismissed by the commission in a decision
published in a gazette notice dated February 24, 2017.
Justice
Olola said no appeal was filed against the decision, within the 30 days
as required by section 26 of the Energy Act and the National
Environment Tribunal was, therefore, free to proceed, as it did, to
issue the licence. The judge was further told that another matter was
pending before the tribunal.
The Attorney-General thereafter asked the court to dismiss the case because it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.
“Accordingly,
I am satisfied that in a case such as this one, where the law provides
for a procedure to be followed, the parties are bound to follow the
procedure before they can invoke the jurisdiction in this court,” said
the judge.
He also said the government largely
complied with the statutory framework established for a project of such
nature. This, he noted, was done through an advertisement in the
newspaper notifying the public of the project.
“That
being the case, the complaints raised by the petitioner herein in my
view ought to have been raised as an objection after the public was
notified of the application for the licence through the advertisement in
the newspapers,” said Justice Olola.
No comments :
Post a Comment