Dear Editor,
In my most recent letter to you Stabroek News 3/10/2014 I had challenged the Minister of Legal Affairs to make public his perception of the character and quality of the recently established Deeds and Commercial Registries Authority. Upon its launching four months ago he was uncharacteristically modest and left the public remarks to the GINA article of July 25th, 2014 which was the target of my letter referred to above.
It happened there that in your SN of October 7, 2014 Mr. Christopher Ram raised two issues, the first of which was an appeal to the Minister of Legal Affairs and other affected parties to have regard to my continuing representations concerning the state of the Deeds Registry as protector of property rights in Guyana.
The second accused the Minister of Legal Affairs of failure to take appropriate action towards the bringing into operation of the Judicial Review Act. There then entered the fray a Ms. Indira Anandjit, unashamedly identifying herself as Permanent Secretary of the said Ministry and proceeding to shame both her office and herself by embarking upon a scurrilous personal attack upon Mr. Ram devoting to that process the first three paragraphs of her letter. It is my view that no public servant may so improperly address, describe or revile any public critic of the administration, in particular one as knowledgeable and distinguished as Mr. Ram.
She gets into further trouble by expecting from Mr. Ram, and not from myself, comment on her fallacious claims regarding our not having been nominated by the Guyana Bar Association as its representative on the Board of Governors of the Deeds and Commercial Registries Authority. I am particularly grateful for the clarification of that issue by Mr. Ronald Burch-Smith, President of the Guyana Bar Association by his letter in the Stabroek News of October 11, 2014. May I add that my declining such nomination was and still is supported by my assessment of the Authority as a patent farce. The combination of the Deeds Registry with the Commercial and not with the Land Registry is an exercise devoid of legal and administrative vision and plain common sense.
Lastly I must deal with the statement by Ms. Anandjit regarding the so- called transformation which she claims to have taken over the Deeds Registry as a result of its conversion from being a department of the central government into a statutory body corporate with a board comprising, inter alia, “representatives of the Ministry of Legal Affairs.” The identity of these representatives is not known since the seven members of the Governing Board of the Authority do not include any such. Would she please name them.
She then refers to consultations held with ‘various stakeholders’ and claims that I was consulted by the Minister on more than one occasion. I must categorically refute that statement and make it clear that at no time was I ever consulted by the Attorney General/Minister on the issue or proposal for the establishment of the Authority. My few meetings with the newly appointed Attorney General, Mr. Nandlall, in December 2011/January 2012, upon his kind invitation, ended in early January 2012 when he emphasized that Cabinet was insistent that the Deeds Registry Authority Act 1999 should have priority for implementation. I made clear in my letter to him on 12th January, 2012 that my cooperation in that regard could not accordingly be relied upon. And that was the last communication between ourselves on the Deeds Registry.
Furthermore, I must emphasize that there never was any form of consultation with me regarding the proposed Deeds and Commercial Registries Authority Act 2013. None whatever! My negative views on such a proposal were made public only through the courtesies of the Stabroek News Letter Pages and neither the Minister nor any of the so-called stakeholders has seen it fit, up to now, to enter into any communication with me on the matter.
The establishment of the “Authority” is a shameless and transparent device by the central government calculated to free itself of its serious primary responsibility for the discharge by the Deeds Registry of its statutory obligations to the people of Guyana. It devises an Authority – nice high-sounding term – whose members were clearly duped into accepting a burden that they must only now have realized that they are incapable of discharging, having regard to their pre-occupation with their several private businesses. The Ministry of Legal Affairs has been for too many years inept and uncaring of that public responsibility in relation to both the core business of the Deeds Registry – A reliable Roman/Dutch Land Titles system – and to the services of a commercial nature – incorporation of companies, business-names registration, intellectual property and bills of sale.
Regrettably, because the Authority is now a legally constituted body, it cannot be wished away, however hare-brained the idea may be. Good sense may yet operate to bring about its dissolution in the near future.
Upon the coming into being of the Authority four months ago, on the basis of my long experience both as legal practitioner and critical commentator on the Deeds Registry, I did with great care prepare a dossier of documents comprising two letters earlier published in your Letter Columns, memoranda to the Registrar and Deputy Registrar of Deeds and a special note emphasizing the dismal condition of the land registers; the condition of the Registry’s vaults and the formidable bundles of conveyancing transactions filed by lawyers but deemed “out of order” by the legally untrained Registry staff. Very significantly, I included a note recommending the making of an Inventory of unbound original documents of title and a listing of those missing.
This dossier was delivered to the Chairman and each member of the Governing Board of the Authority, as well as to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Legal Affairs. Well, it is with greatest disappointment that I report that to date I have not been the recipient of a written acknowledgement or comment from any one of those worthy persons. So much for quality!
But there remain in addition some very serious issues that must be addressed unequivocally by no less a person than the Minister himself:
- Does he as Minister or his alter ego Attorney General consider the Deeds Registry (similarly the Commercial Registry) a department of the Government?
- Are its employees public servants in the legal sense?
- Does the Department cease to depend on such sage advice as available from the Ministers of Labour and the Public Service?
May I again emphasize that my present focus remains upon the Deeds Registry, having particular regard to its functions in relation to land titles administration. And because of the administrative confusion introduced by the establishment of the Authority, I am moved to enquire whether the incumbent Registrar of Deeds is in fact dedicated to this office free of distraction by the establishment of the so-called Commercial Registry and the conduct of its operations. We need urgently, a Registrar clearly committed to the Deeds Registry alone. I believe that this is not yet so!
About one month ago, I witnessed a veritable invasion of ten new junior employees which raised in my mind the matter of training. Since the issue of training was harped upon by the Consultants of six years ago and largely ignored in respect of the older members in supervisory positions, I am rather concerned that these newcomers should not be deprived of the disciplined elementary preparation that would render them adequately developed to be of benefit to the two registries. Structured training is a must!
But then, because the Authority appears to be assuming hands-on responsibility for the day-to-day functioning of the two registries, I think it is appropriate to address to the Authority and the Registrar of Deeds in combination the contemplation of the following questions:
- Are you committed to treat with urgency the requisite of formal legal training for your senior employees? Who will do this training?
- What is your plan for addressing the decrepit state of so many of the land registers? Is there adequate space for executing the necessary repairs?
- Is there a pending engagement with Mr. Opadeyi, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Guyana regarding the digitization of some land title records?
- When will you address directly the hundreds of conveyancing transactions filed for advertisement but deemed unfit for publication?
- When will you order an inventory of the files missing from the volumes, bound as well as yet-to-be bound and stored in your vault?
The above questions are not exhaustive but cover most of the issues that cry out for immediate attention and must be faced if the Deeds Registry is to emerge from its no-so-obvious problematic state.
The other principal parties who together hold the key to resolution of the problems are:
- The Ministry of Legal Affairs which try-as-they-may, cannot by any device escape primary responsibility. They were fully responsible up to April 30, 2014.
- The Parliamentary Opposition Parties who seem to have despaired of inheriting that responsibility via the electoral process.
- The practicing Bar, male and female alike, who make their unsalutory contribution to the bundles of proposed conveyances filed but deemed defective.
The establishment of the Commercial Registry and its siting at the former
NBS building will remain a talking point, and just that, for many months to come.
Yours faithfully,
Leon O. Rockcliffe
