Dear Editor,
The proposed amendment to the Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes Act sets a dangerous precedent and should be withdrawn. The government’s proposed amendments to the Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes Act (the Act) should cause concern among property owners, legal practitioners, and citizens. While the Bill seeks to address specific issues, it fails to modernise the framework to respect the Constitution and reflect fairness, transparency, and equity.
While no individual property owner should be permitted to obstruct critical national development projects unreasonably, this legitimate concern must be balanced against the constitutional rights of citizens and principles of fair compensation. The solution lies not in maintaining an antiquated framework that undervalues private property rights, but in establishing a modern, equitable system that serves both public and private interests.
In my 22 March 2024 column in the Stabroek News ‘Time for a Fairer Compulsory Acquisition’, I advocated for positive reforms that balance development needs with property owners’ constitutional rights. This Bill represents the opposite of such reform, retaining and reinforcing outdated practices and failing to address the inherent inequities in compulsory acquisition.
The principal legislation is rooted in the misconception that “market value” without more represents fair compensation. Compulsory acquisition, by its very nature, deprives citizens of their property involuntarily. As such, compensation must reflect not just the property’s market value but the forced nature of the transaction. Fair compensation should include a premium—no less than 25% above market value – to account for this dispossession, a principle recognised in progressive jurisdictions worldwide, including India. A simple amendment to section 19 of the Act would address the problem.
In 1990, the formal role of the Chief Valuation Officer (CVO) in executing the application of the Act was officially eliminated. Yet, the Government has continued to present the CVO, cloaked with the air of officialdom, at meetings with citizens whose property it intends to acquire under the Act at values inconsistent with the Act. Since the CVO is a government employee, the perception of bias and impartiality will be ever-present. Modern legislation across jurisdictions provides for a Board or Panel of Assessors.
A caring Government would not make a 1914 legislation more oppressive and backward but would embrace reforms that ensure:
1. Compensation includes a compulsory acquisition premium above market value.
2. Valuations are conducted transparently and independently of State influence.
3. Public confidence is restored in the fairness of the process.
4. Transparency and public disclosure.
As Guyana undergoes transformative economic development, we must ensure that national progress does not come at the cost of citizens’ rights. This Bill should be withdrawn, and meaningful reforms should be introduced to create a fair, modern, transparent framework for compulsory acquisition consistent with the Constitution.
The Bill represents a crude and cynical reaction by the executive to a ruling by a judge of the High Court against the Government in a compulsory acquisition case. If there is a measure of perverse fairness in this retrograde step, its victims will be government supporters and non-supporters.
If that is not bad enough, this Bill appears to be an attempt by the Executive to override a first-instance court decision, bypassing the normal appellate process and undermining the separation of powers doctrine. More troubling still is the possibility that this legislation could be applied retroactively to matters already before the Courts. Such an approach strikes at the heart of the rule of law and the constitutional principle of separation of powers. It sets a dangerous precedent where dissatisfied with judicial decisions, the Executive might routinely resort to legislative amendments rather than pursuing proper legal appeals. This bill should be withdrawn forthwith.
Sincerely,
Christopher Ram
