Dear Editor,
Anil Nandlall gets it wrong in his letter titled ‘Land amendment bill was promulgated to address a serious problem’ (SN, March 16). Mr Nandlall asserts that Dr Cheddi Jagan, nationalist and patriot, would have supported the PPP’s bill to abolish prescriptive rights. Men should not attempt to clothe wrongdoing by using the cloak of patriotic men not present. Dr Cheddi Jagan would not have supported this law. This amendment insults the downtrodden of this country. Firstly, why clobber poor people now when the PPP had 18 years to pass this law? Secondly, Mr Nandlall’s contention that the previous prescriptive rights law benefited the “avaricious few” pushes the limits of believability and remains a terrible insult to the tens of thousands of the dirt poor and the powerless squatting on state lands, many of whom vote for the PPP. A vendetta against a wealthy few that results in the punishment of many who are poor and powerless is an atrocious, backward and harmful policy. This is a classic case of passing laws without full consideration of extant realities.
Thirdly, Mr Nandlall’s statistics are a red herring. He does not admit to the number of squatters on state lands. The estimate is around tens of thousands. The PPP just killed the opportunity of the poorest of the poor to own anything in this country. Fourthly, why pass this law when the PPP already has, as Mr Nandlall amply highlights, a system to regularise these squatters? Fifthly, why take away these rights on the eve of an election? Is this the legacy the PPP wants to leave to poor people if it loses the election? Sixthly, Mr Nandlall confirmed that the government already relies on existing law to annex lands from squatters for necessary government development. He provides no evidence of this system’s failure, so why change it? Why not strengthen the existing law and process rather than engage in the blanket removal of rights which affects tens of thousands of poor Guyanese?
Seventh, Mr Nandlall’s justification for removing prescriptive rights includes drainage problems, flooding, lack of playgrounds and limited allotment for road expansion. Ironically, all of these problems plague new PPP-built housing schemes. The only difference is those residents have legal title. If this was the reason for removing prescriptive rights why create it in new housing areas being built?
One can legally acquire a land title and build almost right into the sea at Pradoville 2 but squatters in the same scenario must pack up and leave and cannot acquire title despite living there for an eternity. Amerindians better beware with this law. So should those squatters who sit on prime lands that may be coveted by friends of the famous. The spectre of usurpation looms large. They will use Cheddi Jagan’s name in vain.
Yours faithfully,
M Maxwell
