The residents of Kampung Bukit Koman in Raub who claimed to have suffered health problems from the use of cyanide at a gold mine project there, will know tomorrow whether they can challenge the Environment director-general’s decision to approve a preliminary environmental impact assessment (PEIA) report concerning gold mining in that area.

Court of Appeal judge KN Segara presiding a three-man panel together with Hishamuddin Mohd Yunus and Jeffrey Tan Kok Wha, deferred their decision to tomorrow in the appeal brought by the residents against the refusal of the High Court to grant them leave to initiate a judicial review proceeding.

bukit koman mining site and wells 310107 The panel had earlier heard submissions from the residents' counsel Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, lawyer Cecil Abraham for the Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd (RAGMSB) and senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan representing the Environment DG.

The residents are appealing against the High Court's June 1, 2009 decision which refused their application for leave to initiate a judicial review proceeding against the decision of the Environment DG to approve PEIA report dated Jan 13, 1997 which had sanctioned the use of cyanide to extract gold in the area.

On March, 21, 2008, four representatives of the residents comprising Wong Kin Hoong, Chong Sow Pin, Hue Fui How and Mustapha Hussin filed for leave to seek a declaration that the report for the proposed mining and extraction of gold from the old mine in Bukit Koman, which was submitted by RAGMSB to Environment DG, did not meet the requirement and regulations outlined in Section 34A of the Environment Quality Act 1974.

The residents claimed that PEIA, among others, failed to sufficiently discuss concerning the risk to health and safety of persons residing in the affected area.

They also claimed that issues concerning the effect of effluents on drinking water and the effect on aquatic life caused by potential release of metals and acid mine drainage were also not addressed in the PEIA.

Use of cyanide

RAGMSB submitted the preliminary EIA to the Environment DG on Aug 27 1996. Some 10 years later in 2006, the appellants and residents in the affected area became aware of the use of cyanide.

dap islamic state roundtable 100807 malik imtiaz Earlier, Malik Imtiaz ( left ) submitted that the trial judge misdirected herself in law in deciding not to allow the residents extension of time to file the judicial review.

Under Order 53 rule 3 (6) of the Rules of the High Court states that an application for judicial review should be made within 40 days from the date when the decision was first communicated.

They were four months out of time.                                       

Malik Imtiaz said the matter should be remitted back to the High Court to be heard on the merits because the issues raised by the appellants were clearly of a public interest nature which went to the very heart of the right to life and the right to live in a reasonably healthy and pollution free environment.

Abraham, however, argued the appellate court should not disturb the decision of the High Court because it was an exercise of discretion by the High Court judge not to grant leave to the appellants to initiate a judicial review.

- Bernama