Dear Editor,
I have been following the saga over a parcel of land in Santa Rosa, Moruka, from which a resident of over 25 years was evicted to facilitate the construction of a guest house by the stepson of the Minister of Amerindian Affairs. As a person who also lives in an Amerindian village and who presently resides on a piece of land which was previously occupied, I find this decision in favour of the minister’s relative appalling; it smacks of politics and is in contravention of the Amerindian Act. I would even go so far as to suggest that if this issue had involved anybody other than the Minister’s relative then the decision probably would have gone in favour of the evicted female.
The argument put forward by the relatives of the minister for ownership of the land is that Leonard Torres once ‘owned’ the land over forty-five years ago, and thus he is still entitled to it. His brother even went further to state that Mr Torres had title for this land thus he is entitled to it even though he had left it unused for so long.
Mr Torres does not want the land for himself but rather to bequeath it to a family member who happens to be the Minister of Amerindian Affairs’ relative.
Anyone who lives in Amerindian villages would shake their head at the absurdity of those arguments. Firstly, Amerindian village lands are communal lands, and no villager ever gets complete ‘ownership’ of the land, much less a title to the land. Lands are distributed through the Village Council which is the vested caretaker of communal lands. Further, communal lands cannot be bequeathed to someone who is not a villager.
In Amerindian villages, especially rapidly developing ones like Santa Rosa, there will always be the case of abandoned/unused lands being reclaimed by other villagers. The decision of whether it was abandoned rests with the Village Council. Normally, councils would look at a period of five consecutive years of dwelling to determine whether it is occupied. If this period elapses with no one using these lands then the council would repossess these lands and reallocate as they see fit. That the Village Council saw it fit to give these lands to the presently evicted villager is clear evidence that the land was not being utilized by Leonard Torres. Also, why only now has Leonard Torres seen it fit to object to the council giving the lands to this person when it was issued years ago? Could it be because until very recently he had no intention of reclaiming this land?
If the Leonard Torres is permitted to reclaim land he left many years ago, there will be a tsunami of similar claims from all areas of Guyana where there are titled Amerindian communities, because it is a common practice for villagers to live on lands previously owned by another villager. In Santa Rosa, Moruka, alone, there are numerous similar situations. There are many Moruka residents who, like Leonard Torres and family, left Moruka in search of betterment. Their lands have since been reclaimed by other villagers. These villagers would now be empowered to follow Leonard Torres’ footsteps and demand a return of these lands. How would the Minister, Chairman of the National Toshaos’ Council and the Toshao of Moruka deal with this?
Even more shocking in this case is the treatment being meted out to the present occupier of this land. She built a house on the land and her family lives in it. She has documents from the Village Council stating that she is the owner of these lands. Yet, she was evicted from her house by the police and had her padlocks changed. This is a use of power that is very infrequently, if ever, seen in Amerindian communities. Again this raises questions about whether this eviction was politically motivated. Would any other humble villager have his land issues dealt with in this manner?
In the majority of such cases where the Village Council has granted ownership of an area of land twice, it is usually the holder of the most recent allotment who holds power unless there is an immediate objection by the previous owner. There was no immediate objection by Leonard Torres.
This matter needs urgent independent investigation. The evicted villager needs redress to determine whether her rights were violated. Ideally this should be done by the National Toshaos’ Council but its independence has been severely clouded by the involvement of the Chairman and her supposed judgment which seems so obviously erroneous. Another course of action would be to take the matter before the courts and seek legal redress.
One only hopes that this evicted villager is given the opportunity for redress and that she reclaims what is rightfully hers.
Yours faithfully,
E Fredericks
