While he is satisfied with “having been given the protection of the court”, Devroy Thomas, the chief of Arau says that the refusal of the other reliefs sought by residents of the Amerindian community in a constitutional motion shows that much work remains to be done.
Thomas was referring to a recent ruling by Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang on a constitutional motion brought by the residents of the remote Region Seven community on mining and land issues. The residents had asked for 15 declarations but Justice Chang only made two rulings. He said that the residents of Arau are entitled to an environment which is not harmful to their health and the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) must take reasonable steps to ensure that mining does not diminish the value of the land to the indigenous people there. The constitutional motion had been brought by Thomas, in his capacity as the village chief on behalf of himself and his people and the Arau Village Council against the Attorney-General and the GGMC.
On Tuesday, Thomas said that although he is satisfied with the Chief Justice’s rulings the refusal of the other reliefs shows that much remains to be done on the issues. He said that the ruling will be taken to the village for the residents to discuss before deciding on the way forward. However, he noted that since the GGMC had visited the village in March and issued cease-work orders, miners upriver had re-started operations and the water in the river had become discoloured once again. He said that the fact that Justice Chang did not address the other declarations sought in relation to consultations before mining grants are approved, “that will be very hard for us”.
In his ruling handed down on April 30, the Chief Justice said that the respondents (GGMC and the Attorney General) have a duty under Article 149G of the Constitution to ensure that mining activities carried out on the said lands do not diminish “the usufructuary value (of the) land to the way of life of the applicants as an indigenous people”. Usufructuary is a term in law for a person who has the right to enjoy the products of property he does not own. He ruled that the applicants are entitled to an environment which is not harmful to their health and well-being and mining activities being carried out west of the village pose a danger of harm to their health and well-being. The Chief Justice, however, refused all the other constitutional reliefs sought by the applicants.
The villagers had said that they have occupied a tract of land from “time immemorial” and mineral properties had been given out to various private individuals and mining activities have destroyed the Arau forests, their fishing and their ability to ability to survive off the land. They said that mercury pollution in the rivers and creeks has poisoned the Arau people and their source of food and by virtue of article 149C of the constitution, they are entitled to participate in the management and decision processes of the state insofar as they relate to them and their indigenous lands. The residents had sought a total of 15 declarations, damages, costs and any other reliefs as the court deemed just.
In light of the court’s decision, what is important now is monitoring and the GGMC should be more active, Thomas said.
One of the declarations sought in their motion was for a certain area in the location to be declared as theirs since they had occupied it from “time immemorial”. This was refused. Thomas noted that they had applied to the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs since October last year for an extension to their land, but to date had not received a written response. He said that he had met with Minister of Amerindian Affairs, Pauline Sukhai on the issue and she had only stated that she would try to treat it as a priority but he is not sure how long the process would take.
Meantime, in responding to a GGMC report that villagers themselves were involved in mining and polluting the river downstream, Thomas said that this had been rectified. Officials of the regulatory body had visited the community in March following the publishing of an article in this newspaper about the villagers’ concerns in relation to mining activities.
Thomas admitted that allowing miners to operate in their titled area with only verbal permission was a mistake and said that they had since been asked to leave. He said that the village had agreed to allow them to mine because the area was downstream of where the village is sited. He stated that with regards to miners operating upriver from the village, they have since re-started their operations and the Arau River has become discoloured again. “If they want to mine then they should go according to the mining regulations and not throw tailings into the river”, he said adding that they should heed the GGMC.
The chief said that the regulatory body’s officials on their visit had said that they would visit the area more often. While welcoming this, Thomas said that the fact that the officers often stayed with the miners poses a conflict of interest.
