Dear Editor,
I have managed to hold my peace ever since Friday July 25, 2014 on which day there appeared at page 8 of the Guyana Chronicle, a Gina feature entitled ‘The Deeds Registry – and the Act to make it work.’ I must, however, break my self-imposed silence as things are clearly getting out of hand. The identity of the author of that remark is of little importance; what matters is the aegis under which the article is written.
The Act under reference is obviously the Deeds and Commercial Registries Authority Act 2013 which was brought into operation on April 30, 2014 by Ministerial Order No 70/2014.
My letter to you, Stabroek News June 11, 2014 reflected my utter disenchantment over the duality in the compass of the Authority – Deeds Registry/Commercial Registry – resulting in what I recognized as a patent farce. I also made it clear that my main concern remained the fulfilment of its statutory obligation by the Deeds Registry in relation to its efficient functioning as a reliable land-titles department of the government.
Accordingly the first thing I found misleading in the Gina article was the description of the new legislation as “an Act to make the Deeds Registry work” – No so! The Deeds Registry Act has remained intact and operative ever since the year 1920. What was always and still is needed is action by the administration and staff to have it work as it should and clearly could, if properly managed.
What is truly astounding is the following quote from the said article: “Government is handing over power to an autonomous agency because it believes that the Deeds Registry should not remain as part of the Government’s public sector.” That amazing statement followed by some further inanities supposedly intended to justify the earlier, ended with the condign words, “it is for this reason among others that the body was created into a private agency.” That so-called private agency is the new Authority.
Well, so far-reaching is the above pronouncement that I can only hope that the concerned Minister of Legal Affairs will without delay make a formal statement on the matter.
It is inconceivable that any really responsible government could seek to abdicate total and hands-on responsibility for something as sacred as title-to-lands registration and administration, as already vested in its servant the Registrar of Deeds. But an examination of the quality of the membership of the Authority does little to inspire confidence in the system. Let us examine that membership: A Chairman of little public service administrative exposure; a Registrar of Deeds of just over two-and-one-half years of experience in administration; a commercial lawyer deeply engrossed in the running of a commercial bank; two lawyers in private practice with no reputation for public-administration endeavour; a junior attorney-at-law of a government ministry; (Housing) and an official of the Ministry of Finance (Budgeting). These unsuspecting individuals now find themselves virtual owners of a new government agency with all the responsibilities associated with the running of two separate government departments. But the enigma does not end there. If the Minister intended to create a private Authority as the enigmatic article suggests, well the Authority as now comprised is indeed legally capable of producing that result. According to section 10 (4) of the Act, three members of the Governing Board constitute a quorum. There are only three members representing or drawn from the government, namely, the Registrar of Deeds, the lawyer from the Ministry of Housing and the member from the Ministry of Finance. There is no mandatory presence of the Registrar of Deeds at a meeting of the Board and no place for the Deputy Registrar. Therefore, in theory at least, the Chairman, a lawyer, and any two or three others may make a binding decision on some merely administrative matter inconsistent with the views of the Registrar on the conduct of official business. A clear recipe for trouble! Privatization through the side-door?
The Minister would do well to have regard to and be instructed by the composition of the Board of the Revenue Authority whose members are all top officials of important government institutions thereby preserving the pure governmental quality of that Authority.
I promised the Registrar of Deeds that I would refrain from publishing any of the host of critical questions regarding her department until her return from overseas business that is most likely a distraction from the essential problems of her substantive department.
Meanwhile, it is essential that the Minister of Legal Affairs make a clear statement on his perception of the new Authority as an agent of the Government of Guyana or a victim of the privatization process. I should hate to have to amend my perception of a seeming farce to the status of a public fraud.
Yours faithfully,
Leon O Rockcliffe
