Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang earlier this week ordered the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) to show cause why its decision to refuse to accept prescribed fees and/or rental payments from miners for the use of Amerindian lands should not be quashed.
Attorney Roysdale Forde, on behalf of the Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association (GGDMA), had moved to the court to contest the refusal of the GGMC to accept payments from Alfro Alphonso, a member of the association, on two separate occasions.
The GGDMA has described the move as unreasonable, of no legal effect and in breach and a denial of the principles of natural justice as it affects all members of the association.
According to the Notice of Motion, the GGDMA was seeking an Order or Rule Nisi of Certiorari directing the GGMC to show cause why a Writ of Certiorari should not be issued against it quashing its decision to refuse to accept the appropriate prescribed fees and/or rental payments on the basis of the reasons outlined in a letter by Kampta Persaud, deputy commissioner of GGMC.
Also being sought was an Order or Rule Nisi of Mandamus directing the GGMC to show cause why it should not be compelled to receive the appropriate prescribed fees and/or rental payments in relation to several Medium Scale Prospecting permits without regard to the reasons contained in Persaud’s letter.
A third order, according to the court documents, was also being sought for the GGMC to show cause why it should not be prohibited and or prevented from refusing to accept the appropriate prescribed fees and or rental payments on the basis of the reasons contained in the letter.
In an affidavit in support of the motion, Patrick Harding, president of the GGDMA, said that Alphonso, who is the holder of a medium-scale prospecting permit, sought to pay the appropriate prescribed fees and/or rental for several permits, in October last year and again on March 29 this year, but the GGMC refused to accept them.
According to the affidavit, the attempts to make the payments were in keeping with the Mining Act of 1989.
The affidavit said that on both occasions the GGMC “refused and failed” to provide any reason for its action. Alphonso, Harding said, wrote to the commissioner of GGMC about the issue.
On April 3, Persaud, on behalf of the commissioner responded: “Please be advised that the commissioner had instructed the Land Management Department, based on the instructions from the Hon Prime Minister, then Minister of Mines and Minerals, not to process any application or accept any payment for mineral properties falling within Amerindian titled areas or proposed titled areas. This instruction is still in effect.”
The court documents stated that the reasons advanced by Persaud would affect the payment for permits throughout the country.
A list of affected areas indicated that some 438 mining properties, covering some 433,855 acres would be affected.
Harding said he was advised by his attorney that the commission was “statutorily bound to accept the appropriate prescribed fees and or rental payments in respect of the aforesaid medium scale prospecting permits…”
He said his attorney also advised that the failure to accept the payment is an “unlawful effort” by the commission to induce a breach of the conditions of the permits, as non payment constitutes a ground for the termination of the permits.
According to the affidavit, the commission is bound under the act to grant a renewal of medium scale prospecting permits and more so the applications for the extension of the Amerindian villages and lands are incapable of constituting any reason for refusing to accept the payments.
The matter comes up again on May 30.
