Dear Editor,
I consider it wise before the commencement of the expected May Madness of 2016 that I culminate my efforts to import some measure of sanity into the operations of the Deeds Registry.
Now that the Registrar of Deeds has been freed of the business and physical presence of the Commercial Registry as of January, 2016, this Registrar now has both the time and space for application to the serious and straightforward demands of the Deeds Registry Act. These simple demands are set out at section 7 of that Act and relate to the establishment and upkeep of registers recording the legal ownership of and transactions in land. It should not strain the mind to appreciate that the government of the day must always be in a position to guarantee the accuracy of information regarding the legal tenure of each square metre of land within Guyana.
The tenure and management of lands in Guyana are governed by legislative measures which vary according to the nature, location, and usage thereof. For example, forestry, mining, land-settlement schemes like the Mahaica, Mahaicony, Abary-Agriculture Development Authority (MMA-ADA) those issued under the Amerindian Act, and other areas of State Land governed by the provisions of the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission Act.
A government with vision may even see fit to consider the establishment of a Land Titles Commission embracing all of these categories and manned by at least one representative of each of these bodies.
This letter, however, focuses upon those lands mainly along the sea coast and the populated lands along the banks of our great rivers held by Transport under the old Roman-Dutch system of land tenure or by Absolute Grants under the State Lands Act.
Because of the sometimes forgotten relationship, one must take into account “registered land’ introduced forty-six years ago by the Land Registry Act, and interspersed among those areas where Transports dominate, for example in North and South Ruimveldt and ‘Sophia’ in the capital city of Georgetown.
I must now reiterate my deep concern over the patent deterioration in the quality of the records of the Deeds Registry relating to land tenure. This disquiet is accentuated by the establishment of a weakling ‘Deeds and Commercial Registry Authority’ which came into being on 1st June, 2014 and which is vested with the management and direction of the operations of the Deeds Registry and by that token, responsibility for the records, operations and adequate staffing of the three branches of this important office in the three counties of Guyana.
Now, the substitution of this so-called “Authority” for the central Government in the discharge of the primary responsibilities of the Registrar of Deeds I recognized and described as a patent farce from its inception and its members have done nothing to disprove that categorization after nearly two years of its existence. The quality of that membership presents a rather dismal picture and where the affairs of the Deeds Registry are concerned, there are only two statutory members, namely the Registrar of Deeds and a fairly inexperienced officer of the Ministry of Housing who may be credited with any depth of knowledge of land titles. There are one other from the Ministry of Finance and the Registrar of Commerce (acting). The other four, including the Chairman (the first Chairman lasted only 10 months), and three others. Now all of these last four named, including the Chairman are, like birds- of-passage, free to resign their office upon giving a mere one month’s notice.
Editor, no truly responsible government could seek to abdicate its primary responsibility for the management of communal land-titles to so fledgling and unsteady a group and one which has so far produced no public proof of its efficacy.
Again, no thinking government would seek to combine under one and the same ‘Authority’ responsibility for two disparate areas of endeavour like those of the Commercial Registry, Companies Incorporation Intellectual Property, etc. with those of the Deeds Registry whose principal emphasis is on title to land. And what is more ridiculous is its exclusion of the Land Registry like some distant relative (which it is not) that is left on its own. Could this be the product of sober thought?!
The present situation, however, demands that the Minister of Legal Affairs either through the Authority or his own initiative, exert his ultimate ministerial authority and cause the Registrar of Deeds to embark upon the urgent process of repair of the land registers in Georgetown with a view to extension of that exercise to the Deeds Registries at New Amsterdam and Suddie.
There is an equally compelling issue for address in relation to the Deeds Registry. That Department has been without the services of a Deputy Registrar ever since October, 2015. Such appointment is the Constitutional responsibility of the Judicial Service Commission and it is rightly determined that the position should be filled by an Attorney-at-Law. We are told nothing of this long hiatus. One certain effect is the additional burden placed upon the Registrar of Deeds in respect not only of the daily administration of the Registry, but also in particular to the passing of the conveyances, twice weekly, in Georgetown, once weekly in New Amsterdam and one at least fortnightly at Suddie, Essequibo.
Is our Judicial Service Commission in existence, abeyance or voluntary recess, or is there such a paucity of eligible, interested or available attorneys-at-law? What silence! There are two real dangers in such a situation.
- There may be encouraged a perception or comfortable conclusion that the system can tolerate such a situation.
- The senior members of the existing clerical staff of the Deeds Registry may be convinced or persuaded that they can carry on the business.
Both wrong, of course!
I am personally satisfied that not one of the senior lay clerks is qualified academically, or by length of on-the-job experience to be elevated even to an acting temporary position of Deputy Registrar of Deeds. And this raises yet again the matter of formal departmental training of such members. It is a matter too long ignored by the Ministry of Legal Affairs by the Registrar of Deeds now of nearly four years vintage, and of course, the Authority in question. I have dealt with this factor ad nauseam in previous correspondences. It is as though the governmental authorities are committed to fostering a culture of ignorance of the law among the staff who must daily address legal business of the lay public customer and the legal profession alike. The Philistine approach is clearly evident and meritocracy the order of the day.
The Minister may see fit to respond to his statutory obligation as Attorney General under section 3 of the Deeds Registry Act to hold the requisite examination toward the appointment of notaries public. There is only one person of that category on the present staff of the Registry. The last such examination was held in 1998.
Editor, many thanks! I am deeply indebted to you for your tolerance and faithfulness in publication of my letters on this subject over the years. But wisdom calls upon me to take my seat on this particular issue and I am persuaded to obey.
Yours faithfully,
Leon O. Rockcliffe