Dear Editor,
I refer to a letter in KN on March 12, by Harry Ramessar under the caption, ‘Another nail in the coffin of the working class.’ The writer was referring to the Title to Land (Prescription and Limitation) Amendment Bill 2011. Mr Ramessar, after quoting from a speech given by Cde Donald Ramotar at Babu Jaan (not John as it is frequently mis-spelt), poses the following question:
“Why talk about the great things Dr. Jagan did, when the principle [sic] beneficiaries of his legacy (the P.P.P and its leaders) are today taking away the dignity of the Guyanese people by denying them the right to prescriptive title to their land that they have occupied for more than thirty (30) years.”
The writer proceeds to then outrageously argue that this Bill is part of a deliberate strategy to mentally, economically and socially oppress people.
I spoke in support of this Bill in Parliament and hence, I feel obliged to respond. Firstly, I am unable to make any nexus whatsoever between a person’s dignity and his alleged right to prescriptive title. This Bill was promulgated to address a very serious problem in our country, that is, the acquisition by persons of title by prescription to very vital and valuable property of the state, that is, land owned by all the people of this country, including road reserves, parapets, play parks, drainage reserves, public roadways, canals and sea and river defence reserves.
As result, entire communities cannot be properly drained and are flooded; the consequence of floods are well known to all the citizens of this country; communities are denied their play parks; existing roads cannot be widened; new roads cannot be built; sea defence and river defence works cannot be done. In short, thousands suffer; millions of dollars are lost; progress and development are impeded – all for the benefit of an avaricious few.
In a nutshell, this Bill seeks to protect our national patrimony for us and our future generations and therefore should be supported by all patriotic Guyanese. I have no doubt that Dr Cheddi Jagan, the great nationalist and patriot that he was, would have supported this Bill. In fact, Article 32 of the Constitution of Guyana places upon the state, the government and every citizen of Guyana, a duty to support this Bill. Article 32 provides thus:
“It is the joint duty of the State, the society and every citizen to combat and prevent crime and other violations of the law and to take care of and protect public property.”
Indeed, on a similar basis and for related sentiments, several states in the United States of America, have outlawed acquisition of title by adverse possession in respect of public and municipal property. The same position obtains in the provinces of Alberta and Ontario, Canada. Have the governments of these powerful democracies denuded their peoples of their dignity?
Mr Ramessar apprehends that, as a result of this amendment, people will be evicted from lands after occupying the same for thirty years. I wish to assure Mr Ramessar that this apprehension is completely misplaced and unfounded.
This government has, since 1992, been executing a two dimensional comprehensive housing programme conceived by Dr Jagan. One aspect of it deals with the allocation of house lots and the other aspect of it encompasses the regularization of existing squatters on state lands. Under the former, it is public knowledge that nearly 100,000 house lots have been allocated to citizens throughout the length and breadth of this nation. Seventy-five per cent of these house lots were distributed after the death of Dr Jagan. Approximately, forty thousand more house lots are scheduled to be distributed this year.
In relation to regularization, over 216 housing areas have been identified for regularization stretching from Charity to Crabwood Creek. Under this programme, persons have been issued with titles for state lands upon which they have squatted. Naturally, some persons had to be removed in this process because they had constructed their homes and erections on reserves, roads, streets, etc. This exercise is still continuing. Thus far, nearly 24 thousand families have already benefited under this programme. Every single family that has been removed from state lands has been relocated and given alternative land to relocate.
Additionally, hundreds of people had to be moved from certain areas to facilitate developmental works. These persons were not only given alternative lands but were compensated for the costs of relocation and for the inconveniences they suffered as a result of the relocation. This exercise was undertaken, for example, when the Mahaicony River Bridge, the Mahaica River Bridge and the Berbice River Bridge were being constructed. Only recently, a similar exercise was undertaken at Hope, to facilitate the construction of the Hope Canal. Again, all of this occurred after the death of Dr Jagan.
It is apposite at this juncture that I give the reminder that under this administration dozens of Amerindian communities have been given titles for their communities and the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission and the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission continue to issue hundreds of prospecting licences, mining permits and leases in relation to state lands annually. In sum, this government’s policy and philosophy is to distribute lands to the people not to deprive them of land, but to do so in a regulated and orderly fashion and in recognition of the reality that land forms the basis of the economic empowerment of a people.
In closing, I wish to give the reassurance, that Guyana is a democracy where the rule of law reigns supreme and where the affairs of the state are being administered by the party of Cheddi Jagan.
Yours faithfully,
Mohabir Anil Nandlall MP
