IN pre-independence times, squatting on public or private land was a rarity because the population understood that squatting was an illegality.

The Courts also strictly upheld the law and squatting along canals and on public and private reserves was condignly dealt with.

In the last decade or two, Law and Order gradually broke down and many people, mostly in the country areas, were suddenly overtaken with massive greed.

They felt that they could easily enrich themselves by invading public or even private land that caught their fancy.

And they all had the same ready excuse that they were poor and had broods of children and so on, assuming that claiming poverty justified theft and lawlessness.

But when they are asked where they were living before they attempted to squat, or what property they already had, they become silent.

The Law Courts equally became easy-going in those days and lightly granted titles to squatters.

Over the last few years, government and the Guyanese society as a whole, have again become acutely conscious of the evil of squatting and are now prepared to deal with it resolutely.

Equally, the Law Courts have been educating the population that squatting is an illegality which they will not countenance.

The message is gradually seeping in.

I have been visiting the courts over the last few years and from the proceedings I have learnt the following which could help in the education process:-

(1) That the transported owner of a property does not have to prove his ownership. It is the squatter who is claiming prescriptive rights who has to prove his case and proof is not merely an assertion – “Because I say so, it is so”. The Courts are demanding proof of an exacting and serious type.

(2) I heard one of the brilliant judges remarking that squatter claimants must come to his Court with clean hands. If a squatter claimant is found to be propagating one untruth, one inaccuracy or one misrepresentation, he will be dismissed out of his Court. Uncovering one untruth or misrepresentation immediately nullifies a squatter’s case.

(3) One of the judges remarked that some squatter claimants are under the false impression that the more they build on someone else’s land, the more difficult it would be to dismiss their claim or for the owner to remove them. The judge underlined the adage that whatever you build on someone else’s land belongs to the owner and he would have no hesitation in executing the law.

Building on someone else’s land is therefore risky and will not be giving title automatically.

The Law Courts and the Judges have now begun a process of education which will restore an understanding of the Law, and Guyanese society in thankful. The Courts are now part of the movement of rebuilding a more law-abiding and better Guyana.
R. EDMONDS