Dear Editor,
Your editorial ‘IACHR resolution’ on 30 July 2023 summarises the resolution about the dreadful long-running case of illegal mining at Chinese Landing. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights had previously addressed the complaint about similar problems at Isseneru. The two documents are well worth reading for the careful histories of events, and summaries of the very dubious and ill-informed decisions of the High Court and Appeal Court in Guyana. It does not seem that our judiciary has grasped the notion that a case may involve attention simultaneously to Articles in the National Constitution and to sections in the Amerindian Act, Mining Act, and legislation on water resources. It is scarcely surprising that any legal case involving both human rights and natural resources will require attention to several laws and regulations.
It is a curiosity that routine application by the GGMC of one section of the Mining Act 1989 would have or could have avoided many disputes in the ‘gold bush’. The Mining Regulations 1905 contained in section 199 the important provision – ‘All land occupied or used by the Aboriginal Indians, and all land necessary for the quiet enjoyment by the Aboriginal Indians of any Indian settlement, shall be deemed to be lawfully occupied by them’. This provision has been passed down through revisions of mining law. The current Cap 65:01 Mining Act 1989, Section 111, has very similar language – ‘All land occupied or used by the Amer-indian communities and all land necessary for the quiet enjoyment by the Amerindians of any Amerindian settlement, shall be deemed to be lawfully occupied by them’. That is, in my understanding, all mining operations require the consent of Amerindian communities, and have done for the last 118 years.
When such consent is withdrawn, as in the case of Chinese Landing and the agreement with Wayne Vieira withdrawn in 2004, that withdrawal automatically ended the validity of any GGMC mining concession. The current government proposal for talks about finding ‘mutually beneficial and amicable measures’ is simply a delaying tactic. We see no similar delaying tactics in the current acquisitions of private property for the Gas-to-energy project and the new Demerara Harbour Bridge. The government should use the authority of the mining law, and Article 36 of the National Constitution, to remove the illegal miners immediately and without further prevarication.
Sincerely,
Janette Bulkan