Court to decide validity of Lynas' licence extension on July 28

 

The Kuala Lumpur High Court will, on July 28, issue a ruling on whether the cabinet's decision to grant Lynas a six-month operating licence extension in 2019 was valid.

This followed submissions by the plaintiffs and government lawyers during an online court proceeding today.

Three Kuantan residents - Tan Bun Tee, Ismail Abu Bakar and G Ponusamy - had filed for a judicial review against the cabinet's decision last year.

The applicants were represented by Gopal Sri Ram, Dinesh Athinarayanan and Saha Deva Arunasalam. The government was represented by federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly, while Lynas was represented by Cecil Abraham and Sunil Abraham.

The government will be given two weeks to reply to submissions today and the plaintiffs will make final submissions two weeks after.

The Pakatan Harapan administration had in August 2019 granted Lynas an extension to operate its rare earth plant in Gebeng, Pahang on three conditions:

1. present a plan for a cracking and leaching facility abroad and transfer the processing of radioactive waste;
   
   
2. identify a specific location for a permanent disposal facility for existing radioactive waste; and,
   
   
3. stop all research and development on the usage of radioactive waste.

The plaintiffs had argued that the cabinet's decision was null and void because it violated a decision made by the then Energy, Science, Technology, Environment and Climate Change Ministry (Mestecc) on Dec 4, 2018.

At the time, the Mestecc had ruled that Lynas must remove accumulated radioactive Water Leach Purification (WLP) residue from Malaysia and submit an action plan on how it will dispose of non-radioactive waste, before being allowed an extension.

The trio also sought a declaration that then Mestecc minister Yeo Bee Yin had unlawfully and wrongly delegated her decision-making power, provided for under Section 32 of Atomic Energy Licensing Act 1984, to the cabinet.

Therefore, the plaintiffs argued that the cabinet had acted beyond its legal authority.