Woodlands Holdings Ltd & Anor v. Ministry of Environment Energy and Climate Change and Others (Seychelles)

In 2018, the Petitioners—a private company and its directors—alerted the Ministry of the Environment to the unlawful disposal of animal waste by a livestock operation upstream of the Ministry’s property. Despite notifying the Ministry and subsequent water tests confirming E. Coli contamination, no action was taken for over three years.

The Petitioners filed a lawsuit against the Minister of the Environment, Minister of Health, and the Attorney General (Respondents), claiming that the State had failed in its duty to protect citizens’ right to a healthy environment (R2HE) as outlined in Article 38 of Seychelles’ Constitution due to their inaction – both in failing to investigate and stop the pollution. That some residents of Fairview conducted intensive farming activities in a residential area to the detriment of the environment and other residents’ health highlighted a serious flaw in the government’s environmental policies, licensing, and carrying out its fundamental duty to safeguard citizens’ R2HE. The Petitioners sought compensation for moral damages and health risks they had endured.

Initially a civil suit, the case was referred to the Constitutional Court to determine if the government had violated Article 38 or if it was first the responsibility of the polluting private citizen to address the ongoing pollution. The central issue was whether Article 38 obligated the State to ensure that private citizens did not pollute the environment, and, if they did, it was incumbent on the State to rectify the pollution caused by such citizens first and afterward seek recovery from the private citizen.

The Respondents contended that the Constitution did not extend to the State to ensure that private citizens do not pollute the environment. Rather, they claimed that the State was required to implement measures to advance the Constitution’s objectives, such as enacting a legislative framework for environmental protection. They further argued that errors in law enforcement by the State did not warrant a constitutional claim for redress. The Respondents pointed to completed and ongoing water testing and existing environmental legislation –the Environmental Protection Act (EPA)– asserting that remediation and environmental restoration responsibilities first and foremost lay with the polluting private entity. Only if the private party failed to address their pollution would the Ministry of the Environment need to intervene.

The Constitutional Court rejected the Respondent’s position, stating that enacting measures to protect and preserve the environment did not absolve the government of its responsibilities. The EPA was enacted to safeguard R2HE, reflecting the imperatives outlined in Article 38; however, compliance with the EPA was necessary to enforce those rights. That the alleged private polluter was a licensed farm necessitated that the government act to halt the pollution. Drawing on international law, general principles of international law, and domestic precedents, the Court concluded that the Respondents had violated the Petitioners’ R2HE through their inaction, endangering their health, safety, and the environment. The Respondents were mandated to undertake all necessary measures for environmental restoration, ensuring every individual’s right to a clean, healthy, and ecologically balanced environment.

In defining the State’s obligations under Article 38, the Court determined that these obligations extended to ensuring that private citizens did not pollute the environment and that, if they did, the State was required to remediate it. Failure to do so could render the State liable to its citizens for damages due to its omissions and failure to fulfill constitutionally mandated duty.

Using an established domestic body of law

The Petitioners sued the Respondents, citing a breach of their constitutionally protected R2HE, as Article 38 of Seychelles’ Constitution outlined. Article 38 mandated the State to take actions for environmental protection and enhancement. The Petitioners contended that the government’s responsibility under Article 38 went beyond merely enacting environmental laws—it required addressing pollution caused by private entities.

As the case reached the Constitutional Court, the Petitioners leveraged domestic law to shift the burden of proof to the State. Where the Petitioners established a prima facie case that a constitutional right was at risk of violation by the State, the State was required to prove that no violation had occurred. Petitioners relied on constitutionally provided solutions for those whose rights were violated, explicitly asking the Court to declare the government’s actions unconstitutional, direct the government to take necessary actions and provide compensation.

The Constitutional Court carefully considered the Petitioners’ arguments and found the Respondents’ defense unconvincing. It ruled that the obligations outlined in Article 38 extended to the State, requiring it to ensure that private citizens did not pollute the environment and to clean up any such pollution.

Emphasizing the obligation to cooperate internationally or nationally

The international community has increasingly backed the R2HE through various means, such as individual States recognizing this right, actions by the United Nations General Assembly, and efforts by UN special rapporteurs. The Petitioners emphasized that Seychelles’ Constitution required interpreting fundamental human rights consistently with international obligations and considering international instruments, foreign constitutions, and court decisions during judicial proceedings.

The Court’s analysis involved studying rulings on similar cases from courts across the globe, including those from the Organization of American States and South Africa. For instance, an Inter-American Court decision regarding Argentina highlighted the State’s duty to address harm caused by private entities to indigenous communities and the environment. Similarly, a South African case addressing the interface between private conduct and State responsibilities was “illuminating.” Reviewing such international precedents aided the Seychelles Constitutional Court in assessing the government’s environmental protection efforts and its duty to address pollution caused by private parties under the Constitution and EPA.

Emphasizing the State’s duty to regulate or its failure to observe its due diligence obligations

The Petitioners highlighted the State’s failure to fulfill its constitutionally mandated duty to protect the environment and citizens’ R2HE. They argued that Seychelles’ Constitution demanded more than just implementing environmental legislation; it required rigorous enforcement to ensure private actors complied with environmental laws and refrained from polluting. The primary responsibility for curbing pollution from private actors rested with the government, despite citizens also having a duty to protect the environment. However, the government’s failure to promptly address pollution and enforce the EPA against private polluters amounted to a breach of its constitutional duty to protect the Petitioners’ R2HE.

The Court embraced these arguments, acknowledging that while citizens must be environmental stewards, this did not exempt the government from its obligation to enforce environmental regulations. These regulations, enacted to realize citizens’ R2HE under Article 38, were not being effectively upheld to protect the Petitioners. The Court affirmed that the government’s inaction regarding private actors’ pollution violated its constitutionally mandated duty to protect R2HE.

The Court’s ruling emphasized the government’s obligation to enact and rigorously enforce environmental legislation against private actors causing pollution. The case highlighted the significance of international legal principles and precedents in shaping Seychelles’ domestic constitutional law, showcasing the interconnectedness of global and local environmental responsibilities. Overall, the judgment reinforced the importance of governmental accountability in safeguarding environmental rights and ensuring a clean, healthy, and ecologically balanced environment for all of Seychelles’ citizens.