- Previously SHM filed a lawsuit against the industrial development authority in order to uphold a contractual pilot and project agreement for a large-scale primate facility.
- Now the D.A. is requesting to argue several points in the case ranging from the state's involvement in the revenue bond validation to allegations that Georgia's Open Meeting Act was violated.
- Watch the story to hear how this action could potentially influence SHM's pending primate deal.
BROADCAST TRANSCRIPT:
A new action is being taken by a South Georgian D.A. in an attempt to stop a controversial project from calling Bainbridge home.
WTXL is highlighting what actions are being taken in one of the many court cases involving the primate company Safer Human Medicine.
" [He]will finally get the chance to tell his truth about what happened to him. And how he was used in the judicial process in the beginning to get the bond passed,” said Lisa DaSilva Stand Bainbridge Georgia.
On December 31 South Georgia district attorney Joe Mulholland requested to intervene in a case filed by primate company Safer Human Medicine against the Decatur County- Bainbridge Industrial Development Authority.
A spokesperson for SHM released a statement,
“The Georgia Court of Appeals' decision was very clear about Georgia law and the economic development process. SHM will continue defending its rights in state and federal court to ensure this project moves forward. Together with the Development Authority, we look forward to advancing this project transparently,”
While some neighbors have been following this case since the beginning others are just beginning to research the leaders behind the project.
"It just threw up a lot of red flags to me just as a concerned citizen, Bainbridge resident Suzi Bonifay.
Safer Human Medicine aims to bring a primate facility to the area where primates will be raised and later shipped to other facilities for research.
The project would bring hundreds of jobs to the area with the opportunity to advance with the company.
Despite the positive economic impact the facility will have on the community many people in the area are protesting the company.
"[I was] kind of in a state of agitated readiness hoping to get off on a good foot this year to continue the fight to stop the monkey farm,” according to DaSilva.
If Mulholland's request is added in the court case court documents reveal that he plans to argue the following points;
One being to question the bond validation while alleging that the Georgia Open Meetings Act was violated.
Another argument point will be that the state is a part of the bond validation which is essential to the project.
Last, the D.A. is alleging that the Industrial Development Authority and SHM have filed a "collusive suit" meaning the agreement was not made in an honest manner. Claiming the Authority and SHM have quoted "schemed to secure a favorable order from the court."
WTXL asked how actions like this are impacting an already divisive community.
"I hope that common sense prevails and that people continue to try to work and live together,” according to Bonifay.
Any opposers involved in this particular case have 21 days from December 31 to respond to the D.A's request.
