Kuannersuit company in sharp criticism of self-government

The Australian company Energy Transition Minerals, which has filed a lawsuit against the Self-Government for The Kuannersuit licence, believes that Naalakkersuisut and the Danish government are withdrawing their case at length with procedural leg braces.

According to the company, the Attorney General, who represents Denmark and Greenland, has in a letter to Greenland's High Court from 25 November stated that there continues there are a number of procedural issues that should be clarified before a decision can be made a deadline for a response before the trial.

The Australian company Energy Transition Minerals, which has filed a lawsuit against the Self-Government for The Kuannersuit licence, believes that Naalakkersuisut and the Danish government are withdrawing their case at length with procedural leg braces.

According to the company, the Attorney General, who represents Denmark and Greenland, has in a letter to Greenland's High Court from 25 November stated that there continues there are a number of procedural issues that should be clarified before a decision can be made a deadline for a response before the trial.

- It is difficult to perceive this behavior as anything other than a deliberate attempt to drag the matter out long haul. We are surprised that Denmark and Greenland stand as models with open eyes for a matter in which all parties have an interest to be resolved must be delayed and be delayed in this way. The result is simply that Greenlanders are left with bills in the millions for legal assistance. There can no longer be much doubt the substantive content of the case. We believe that we have a very strong case, and therefore As planned, we continue to work towards a clarification as to why we finds it unnecessary to spend more time on formalities, which only procrastinate the matter, says Director of Energy Transition Minerals, Daniel Mamadou, i a press release.

It is the company that delays the process

Claimed by the prosecutors that the self-government should withdraw the case long haul, is the answer from Naalakkersuisoq for Business, Raw Materials, Energy, The area of justice and equality Naaja H. Nathanielsen (IA):

- No. Nothing could be more wrong.

According to her, it is actually the other way around.

- We have numerous examples of Greenland Minerals/Energy Transition Minerals (GME/ETM) has put in place a strategy that delays the process. The most obvious example is of course the whole arbitration case, which should not be at all planted. It was the wrong place to have the case tried and it is now final clarified with the decision of the Arbitration Court.

- Another example is the attempt to also the facility a case in Copenhagen City Court. It was also recently rejected by that Naalakkersuisut and a number of Greenlandic institutions are now out of the case. In addition, the company's strategy of subpoena a large number of institutions and persons who are not parties to the case, too delayed the matter. Naalakkersuisut is the only counterparty in the case, and it is missing GME/ETM to understand or recognize.

- For example, it makes no sense at all to accuse Inatsisartut's chairman of a decision made by Naalakkersuisut. We have therefore challenged this in the High Court. Yes, it takes time to clarify, but the alternative is unacceptable, says Naaja H. Nathanielsen and adds:

– If the case were to continue with all the other parties, who GME/ETM has subpoenaed, so it only means confusion and more costs. Therefore, the only responsible thing is to get the case cut to size, then it can be dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible. Naalakkersuisut sees like GME/ETM until the case is tried in court in the way it should be tried on; Namely in a case between GME and Naalakkersuisut, focusing on them decisions made by Naalakkersuisut.

Personal liability

The company is also surprised that the Attorney General with his letter to Greenland's High Court opens for Energy Transition Minerals to possibly should hold individual members of Inatsisartut personally liable for damages i the case.

- We are bound by the fact that the other party's own lawyer suddenly brings into play that Individuals can be held responsible in this case. It is of course serious for the persons who may, in the event, become liable for damages, sounds that of Daniel Mamadou.

But it is not a correct interpretation, says Naaja H. Nathanielsen: - The polite interpretation is that GME/ETM must have misunderstood their own action. It is GME/ETM that has taken the decision to bring the case against you quite a few quite irrelevant parties. As we have guided them about numerous times over the years, Naalakkersuisut is the only entity it is proper to sue.

- GME/ETM has, among others, sued ”Inatsisartut v/The chairman of Inatsisartut, Mimi Karlsen". That decision is meaningless, as Inatsisartut's chairman cannot be held responsible for decisions made by Naalakkersuisut. All these unclear decisions made by GME/ETM give a lot clarification questions. But it is GME/ETM that has set the framework, and it is which we have to deal with. We are forced to challenge these conditions and ask questions about it. Questions that GME/ETM have so far not answered.

Intimidation campaign against the self-government

According to Naaja H. Nathanielsen, the department has made some clarifications questions about the case at Greenland's High Court, but that it is not an opening against personal liability claimed by the company.

- If they really believe it, then it is really worrying. That means that they have not understood the decision-making structure in raw material projects at all. Once again, we find that GME/ETM is trying to create a scare campaign against Self-governed by implying that someone is going to hang on an astronomical compensation. As always, we are ready to guide GME/ETM, like everything the time has come - and we welcome a quick and effective trial of welcome our decisions.

Environmental and statutory requirements

Energy Finally, Transition Minerals writes that all environmental and statutory requirements for an exploitation permit for the Kuannersuit project have been met, and that the company has thus been wrongfully deprived of the opportunity to operate mining in Kuannersuit.

But neither here Naalakkersuisoq agrees with the interpretation:

- No decision has been taken as to whether GME/ETM meets all environmental and statutory requirements. Public hearings have previously been applied for and held the company's EIA and SIA, and it is Naalakkersuisut that must approve these reports. Naalakkersuisut has not taken a position on or approved GME's EIA and SIA. Right now the case is about whether the application for a exploitation permit and the refusals have been given rightly. They are given as a result of the amount of uranium in the resource and in relation to the Uranium Act. Should the court against our expectation find that our refusal was not given rightly, then the case must will be repatriated to Naalakkersuisut, who will then deal with them further conditions are met. This is the usual procedure when administrative decisions are tested. So their interpretation is not correct.

There the first hearing in the case between Greenland Minerals/Energy has not yet been scheduled Transition Minerals and Self-governing.