Squatting in post-Independence Guyana has become a troublesome social and legal problem.

IN colonial Guyana, squatting never had its present dimensions and there was not much squatting on Government or private lands. The squatting of large numbers of people in an area creating a community of squatters first came about in the 1960’s when there were Cold War-inspired racial disturbances. Racial groups moved almost in entirety from one village to another occupied by their respective racial group. The people who moved settled in any unoccupied land they could find, which was mostly the undrained, bushy land on the periphery of the villages.

When the country returned to normalcy, the various squatting communities remained where they were and never returned to their original villages. With the creation and existence of these squatting communities, consciousness of the illegality of squatting became blurred.

Accordingly, people began to squat wherever they saw a desirable area of land, For example, Sheriff Street, now Mandela Avenue, was built with wide road reserves to cater for the widening of the road which was to lead to the airport. Hundreds of squatters, however, began to invade the reserves, stake out house lots and began building fairly substantial structures.

Even in formal housing developments there has been squatting and last year, the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CH&PA) had a great deal of trouble in clearing squatters off land in Sophia where they were impeding infrastructural developments such as drainage, electricity and water installations. There was even some violence. And the same pattern has been occurring at the Cheddi Jagan International Airport where squatters have to be cleared away for Guyana to have a safe and world class International Airport.

Squatters who squat on large pieces of private land often do so as an economic venture.
They go in families, with each member staking out a parcel of land and then indulge in “selling” land. Others hold on to it hoping to acquire title by prescription. Squatting is a social and legal problem which has to be eradicated if Guyana is to become an ordered and developed society. Indeed, with a country with so much land available and Government offering the grant of liberal leases, no one has any justification to squat. It is sometimes said in sociological studies, when comparing city slums and city squatting, that squatting is preferable. Such studies deal with comparatively small numbers of squatters. The Guyana situation is quite different.

Squatting could be eliminated or greatly diminished if certain steps are taken. The first is educational. At both the primary and secondary levels, children should be taught the undesirability and illegality of squatting and the liberal availability of State lands. Squatters who occupy Government lands are often “regularised” by giving them title. In any kind of “regularisation” by governmental authorities, only renewable leases should be granted. This would make squatting less attractive.

If action has to be taken to clear an area of squatters, it should be done quickly and thoroughly. Very often, action is energetically undertaken against squatting but this soon tapers away into inaction with activity beginning again after a lengthy period. In such cases, squatters should be moved to other areas where they may be offered long leases. Many such squatters would prefer to return to their former habitations.

One of the most effective actions in any anti-squatting drive is to amend the Prescriptive Title Laws. In recent years, the State protected itself by making it impossible for any squatter to secure prescriptive title to any State-owned land. Unfortunately, the State omitted to take the opportunity of extending protection to private lands. If one squats on private lands for 12 years and over, one could begin legal proceedings to acquire title to that land. This 12-year rule was adopted from English legislation when Justice Sir Joseph Luckhoo was the Chief Justice, replacing the 33-year rule. This 12-year rule is relevant to urbanised societies like Britain but may be quite inappropriate to Guyana. It is inappropriate to Guyana for two reasons: The first is that Guyana is not an urban society. And the second is, that Guyana suffers from a very high rate of emigration. When people emigrate, they leave their property in the care of friends or relatives, who for one reason or another, are unable to take care of the property and squatters invade it. Our high emigration rate necessitates a longer prescriptive period and the State may well return to the 33-year rule for private lands. The return of the 33-year rule would help to strengthen social equilibrium.