Dear Editor,
The news was neither a shock nor a surprise, just another in the series of disappointments that we have grown accustomed to. The list of names for the new IMC at Nos 52-74 Villages NDC includes a businessman who has been accused by the community of occupying lands officially under the control of the Sea Defence Board. The land in question, located on the eastern side of the village bordering the Corentyne River, was retained by the Sea Defence Board after the construction of a sea defence dam at Nos. 67-68 Villages. In 2006, after a petition from the community, the Sea Defence Board wrote to the Lands and Surveys asking for its assistance to return the lands to the original proprietors and/or their heirs, since the area was now considered stable. The request by the Sea Defence Board has so far been ignored/refused.
In the meantime Stabroek News, November 22, 2007, reported that the businessman had secured the property on behalf of his company, C & R Investments. The Stabroek article reported the Chairman of the No 66 Fishing Cooperative as saying that Ministers Robeson Benn and Jennifer Westford had visited the area and had given Mr Nathoo (the ice factory owner – C & R Investments) the go-ahead to build. [Ed note: In the same story we had reported that Mr Nathoo had shown this newspaper a map and some documents to demonstrate he had obtained the land from the Sea Defence Board.]
Two months ago a group of residents from the community met the Regional Chairman at the No 52-74 NDC offices expressing concern about the increased trespassing in the area – some squatters are from as far away as Rosignol. A few weeks later the Chairman’s office confirmed the “grant” to the businessman, and without any further information appeared to have dropped the matter.
The problem, after the grant, is that the Sea Defence Board has been unable/unwilling to assert its authority over the area allegedly because Minister Benn is also the subject minister of the Sea Defence Board. Though the four engineers over the past five years, who have come to serve the area, sympathise with the community and confirm that the land belongs to it, they are unable to cross the ministry on the matter.
The businessman subsequently raised several units inside the fenced compound, including an ice factory, windmill, water well and chicken farm. ‘Cease and desist’ orders from the NDC, responsible for building permits, were ignored.
On August 11, 2010, a front page story in Kaieteur News reported ‘Corentyne businessman loses 4,000 chickens in flood,’ the night before. One investigation conducted by some residents, publicly reported (Kaieteur News August 15, 2010) that the claim was a hoax and there was no evidence that the neighbouring creek water had entered the compound, never mind killing 4,000 chickens. Requests to the EPA, the local environmental engineer and the NDC for an official report on the 4,000 dead chickens were said to have been politely refused. If 4,000 dead chickens were floating around the community it was not only an environmental hazard but an immediate health one as well.
In addition several reports to the EPA that the businessman was using the immediate surroundings of his compound as well as the neighbouring creek to dispose of his waste from the chicken farm, including chicken parts, got nowhere. The EPA never came to investigate the evidence accumulated as proof of our claim. It did report, however, by telephone, that our claims were not true. It refused to respond when documented reports along with photographs were submitted. Not unexpectedly, reports to the NDC and local environmental engineer came up blank.
Finally, in 2010, a mysterious new road project began on the northeast, sideline dam of the village beginning from the first street directly to the businessman’s compound. Investigations indicate that the road was a project of the Regional Democratic Council. Its details were never the subject of consultation with the NDC, only an announcement at the local fishing coop attended by an officer of the NDC and selected residents. The ‘consultation’ did not provide the name of the contractor, the cost of the project or the bidding process that was involved.
What is appalling in all of this is the number of public agencies that have been drawn into the ministry ‘grant’ to provide cover or silently condone what everyone knows. The agencies we have been able to identity with some authority in the matter include the Lands and Surveys Commission, the Sea Defence Board, the Central Planning and Housing Authority, the NDC, the RDC, the EPA and the local environmental engineer. What it has also done is to make clear in a small village community how those with connections and friends can easily transform public property, private property in this case, into personal gain.
The only question that stumps me at the moment is the appropriate word, concept or category to describe and name the condition in which public authority is deliberately organized to prey on local citizens.
Yours faithfully,
Rishee Thakur
