-after marathon session
By Khadidja Ba
A bill brought by the state to speed the acquisition of land for public purposes was passed yesterday after a marathon parliamentary session that saw exchanges over the ancestral lands of African Guyanese and fierce heckling from both sides.
The National Assembly’s 90th sitting eventually passed the Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes Amendment Bill 2024 No. 16/2024 at 8:45 p.m., following a day-long session that stretched from 10:33 a.m. The government used its majority to pass the bill while the opposition voted solidly against it.
Clause 2 of the Bill will amend section 7 (1) of the Principal Act by firstly providing that the vesting of the compulsorily acquired land in the State is subject to the prompt payment of the purchase money or of any adequate compensation. Secondly, the proposed amendment amends subsection (1) to guarantee the State’s right to vacant possession of the land that is compulsorily acquired.
Clause 3 of the Bill substitutes for section 24A, which deals with the payment of land bonds, a new section 24A. The new section establishes the legal framework for the Minister to make an advance cash payment to an interested and authorised person. An advance payment will only be paid after the land is acquired by the State, if requested by the interested and authorised person and where there is satisfactory proof of title. The advance payment shall not exceed 80 per cent of the purchase money or adequate compensation. Moreover, where the land is the subject of a mortgage or any other similar registered encumbrance, the Minister shall pay such advance payment as would be required for securing the release of the interest of the mortgagee or the creditor in that land.
The debate touched on several contentious issues, from compensation rights to concerns about governmental overreach, with both sides exchanging heated remarks on the proposed changes.
The Bill, which amends the Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes Act, seeks to, according to the Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC, modernize and streamline the process by which the state acquires land for public projects. At the core of the amendments is the introduction of the terms “prompt” and “adequate” compensation, ensuring that landowners are fairly compensated for their property, along with the right of the state to gain “vacant possession” of the land after compensation is paid.
A key change under Clause 2 of the Bill involves the vesting of compulsorily acquired land in the state, contingent on prompt payment of compensation. Clause 3 also introduces a significant modification, replacing the existing bond payment system with a cash advance of up to 80% of the compensation amount, payable once the land is acquired.
Nandlall, in his opening remarks, sought to address what he described as a “deluge of misinformation” surrounding the Bill. He emphasized that the proposed amendments would not grant the government any new powers to acquire private property arbitrarily, asserting that the principle of compulsory land acquisition was well-established in both Guyana’s legal framework and international law.
Despite government reassurances, opposition members expressed significant concerns, particularly regarding the potential for governmental overreach. Opposition Members throughout the debates, called for the bill to be referred to a special select committee for further scrutiny.
A major point of contention was the proposed 80% cash payment for landowners, with APNU+AFC MP Ganesh Mahipaul arguing that this may not adequately compensate landowners for the emotional and social value of their properties, especially for those who have held the land for generations. He emphasized that land ownership in Guyana often carries deep sentimental, cultural, and historical significance that cannot be captured by market value alone.
Moreover, Mahipaul raised concerns about potential racial bias in the way compensation could be handled, suggesting that the government’s approach may lead to unequal treatment based on the ethnicity of landowners. However, Nandlall replied to these claims, stressing that compensation would be based strictly on market value and the specifics of each acquisition.
The Attorney General pointed out that the concept of compulsory land acquisition is a well-established legal principle that dates back to colonial times. He stressed that the amendments would only clarify existing provisions in the law, including the right of the state to acquire land for public use as long as “prompt” and “adequate” compensation is provided. He also rejected claims that the amendments violated constitutional protections on private property, noting that such acquisitions are constitutionally permissible under Guyana’s 1966 Constitution.
Further, Nandlall explained that the introduction of the 80% advance payment was meant to provide landowners with immediate compensation while ensuring that the process of acquiring land for public infrastructure projects could move forward without unnecessary delays.
Indigenous communities
Vincent Henry, MP for the Guyana Action Party (GAP), who raised alarm over the bill’s potential impact on Indigenous communities, argued that the proposed amendments could infringe upon Amerindian land rights, bypassing the Amerindian Act of 2006 and allowing land acquisitions without the “free, prior, and informed consent” of Indigenous peoples. He also referenced international agreements like the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which calls for protections against dispossession of Indigenous lands.
Henry also called for the bill to be reviewed by a special select committee to allow for broader consultation with Indigenous groups, ensuring that their rights were safeguarded. He warned that the bill, as currently proposed, could lead to the marginalization of vulnerable communities in the face of large-scale infrastructure projects.
Government representatives, including Public Works Minister Juan Edghill, defended the Bill’s intentions, emphasizing that it was designed to facilitate critical infrastructure development while protecting the rights of property owners. Edghill pointed to past instances, such as the Berbice Bridge project, where land acquisition had been handled in a transparent and fair manner.
Additionally, Minister of Housing Collin Croal responded to public concerns by highlighting the government’s track record in compensating citizens displaced by infrastructure projects. He detailed efforts made to assist families relocated during highway construction, where compensation packages included financial support and new housing opportunities. Croal stressed that such measures were taken to mitigate the social impact of displacement, and he argued that similar steps would continue under the new law.
Several opposition members, including Annette Ferguson and Amanza Walton-Desir, continued to advocate for public consultations, expressing concern that the bill had been rushed through without sufficient input from affected communities. Ferguson, in particular, questioned why the government had not engaged in discussions earlier in the process, pointing out that land acquisition projects had already been undertaken in the past, such as the controversial Great Diamond area development.
Walton-Desir also raised the issue of social and emotional losses linked to land acquisition, drawing comparisons to international models, such as those in Australia, where compensation for land loss accounts for both market value and emotional costs.
Despite these concerns, government members remained firm in their defence of the bill, stressing the need for efficient land acquisition to keep pace with Guyana’s development ambitions. The government maintains that the amendments will offer greater clarity, fairness, and transparency in the process, helping to prevent delays in vital projects while ensuring that property owners are compensated adequately.
Displaced
Opposition members, including Nima Flue Bess, voiced strong objections to the bill, particularly over the treatment of individuals displaced by land acquisition. Bess highlighted the psychological toll relocation can have on residents, especially when they have strong emotional attachments to their homes and communities. She stressed the need for a compassionate and thoughtful approach to displacement, emphasizing that those administering the process should show grace and understanding.
“The people who are affected by these changes need more than just financial compensation,” Bess said. “They need psychosocial support, especially when they are being uprooted from environments they’ve lived in for generations.”
Bess further argued that the bill touches on broader issues of historical injustice and socio-political inequality, and questioned whether the government’s approach truly reflects fairness and justice for the people. “This bill is deeply tied to issues of fairness, justice, and equality in governance,” she added.
The Opposition also drew comparisons to colonial-era practices, suggesting that the bill might reflect a continuation of colonial tactics in land acquisition, furthering the sense of injustice felt by affected communities.
Khemraj Ramjattan, APNU+AFC Member of Parliament, emphasized the need for the government to focus on issues that hold far more significance than the acquisition of land for developmental purposes. Ramjattan underlined the growing tension between utilitarian ideals—focused on the greatest good for the greatest number—and the rights of individuals, particularly when it comes to the balance between human rights and national development.
Ramjattan’s remarks drew attention to the historical context surrounding the drafting of Guyana’s constitution in 1966. At that time, as the nation transitioned to independence, the framers of the constitution were tasked with ensuring that certain fundamental human rights were enshrined within the document. These rights, he argues, must not be overlooked in the pursuit of development, especially when large-scale projects—such as land acquisition for infrastructure or resource extraction—threaten to infringe upon the rights of citizens.
“While development is crucial for the country’s progress, it is essential that we don’t sacrifice the human rights of individuals in the process,” Ramjattan stated. “The constitution was designed with a clear focus on protecting individual freedoms and dignity. It is critical that these protections remain at the forefront of our policymaking, even as we embark on major developmental projects.”
“We must recognize that development should not come at the expense of the very people whose lives we aim to improve,” he continued. “It is essential to find a balance that respects the rights of all citizens while also pursuing growth and national progress.”
Prime Minister Mark Phillips defended the Bill and argued that African Guyanese are now receiving more house lots under the current People’s Progressive Party (PPP)/Civic administration than they did under the previous A Partnership for National Unity (APNU)-Alliance For Change (AFC) government from 2015 to 2020.
“The PPP government has made significant strides in providing African Guyanese with house lots that they were denied under the APNU administration,” the Prime Minister said, emphasizing the government’s commitment to inclusivity and equal access to land for all Guyanese.
This remark echoed the points made by government speakers prior to the Prime Minister’s address, which highlighted the ongoing efforts to ensure that all ethnic groups, including African Guyanese, benefit from the government’s housing initiatives.
However, the opposition raised more concerns regarding the legislative framework around land acquisition. Roysdale Forde SC, APNU+AFC Member of Parliament, called for an urgent review and enactment of new legislation to govern the allocation and acquisition of land. Forde questioned the rationale behind the government’s proposed amendment, urging the House to thoroughly evaluate the circumstances that necessitate such changes.
“Land is only acquired once full compensation is paid, yet we still have not fully understood why the government is bringing forward this proposed amendment,” Forde said. He further stressed the need for protections akin to those offered by the Amerindian Act to safeguard African Guyanese land ownership.
In a final address to the House, Nandlall took a firm stance against the ongoing opposition criticisms of the proposed land legislation, which has sparked a heated national debate over the question of ancestral land rights.
Nandlall’s remarks focused particularly on what he described as a “running theme” in opposition presentations—the invocation of “African ancestral land.” The Attorney General challenged the opposition to clarify exactly what they meant by this term, asserting that no one had yet provided a concrete definition of “African ancestral land” or explained its relevance in the context of the bill.
“The concept of African ancestral land has become a central talking point in the opposition’s narrative, but no one has explained what ‘African ancestral land’ actually means,” Nandlall stated. “ “Let me be clear: if this bill in any way compromises fairness or introduces racial discrimination, I will not hesitate to step down. But what I see instead is a well-structured, race-neutral framework designed to address the land issue in a fair and equitable manner for all citizens”
Before the bill was passed, Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones asked for a division. Thirty opposition members voted against and 33 Government members, including list representative Dr. Asha Kissoon, voted for the new Clause 2. For Clause 3, 30 Opposition members voted against, and 34 members voted in favour.
Additionally, the following bills were read for the first time during the session:
Engineer’s Bill 2024 – Registration and regulation of engineering (Bill 21/2024) introduced by Public Works Minister Juan Edghill
Financial Institutions Amendment 2024 Bill 22/2024 – introduced by Ashni Singh, Minister within the Ministry of Finance
Guyana Horse Racing Authority Bill of 2024 (Bill 23/2024) – to provide for the regulation of the Horse Racing Authority and other related matters introduced by Charles Ramson, Minister of Culture, Youth and Sport.
