I WISH to refer to an article under the caption, ‘Minister Sukhai embroiled in land grabbing dispute – Instructed NTC chairperson to intervene’, which appeared in the Sunday 22nd January 2012 issue of Kaieteur News. Kindly permit me to state the following in your letters column.
1. The Hon. Minister of Amerindian Affairs Pauline Sukhai, MP, is not engaged in any land-grabbing dispute as wrongly published by the Kaieteur News.
2. The Hon. Minister’s father, Mr. Leonard Torres is currently the rightful owner of a house located at San Jose, Santa Rosa Village in the Moruca sub-region, Region 1.
3. Mr. Leonard Torres, while living on the coastland would return to Santa Rosa Village from time to time to ensure that his house lot is properly and effectively maintained at San Jose.
4. Mr. Leonard Torres’ house lot was subjected to land-grabbing by close relatives who are associated with the APA. Can the APA explain this?
5. Mr. Leonard Torres would bitterly complain to his daughter, who is the Minister of Amerindian Affairs, that  his house lot at San Jose is being taken over by his relatives, and despite his pleadings with them to leave his property they refused to do so.
6. The Hon. Minister of Amerindian Affairs acted quite professionally where her father’s land matter was concerned. To avoid a conflict of interest, she asked the National Toshao Council (NTC) to intervene on her behalf, which it did.
7. Meetings were held between the NTC, Santa Rosa Village Council and the parties to the land dispute, where it was decided that the land in dispute rightly belongs to Leonard Torres, the father of the minister. The minister had made it clear initially that she will uphold the decision arrived at as a result of those meetings.
8. The Kaieteur News reported that Mr. Leonard Torres wants to hand over his small house lot to his daughter who is the Minister of Amerindian Affairs. So what may I asked? Are Amerindians not entitled to the right of handing over their properties to their children like other Guyanese living on the coastland? Even though the lands are held in communal ownership?
9. Can the APA say why its intervention in the Village Council’s matter regarding the house lot dispute became necessary, and wasn’t their action a conflict of interest?
10. The Santa Rosa Village Council must be commended on the handling of this matter.
11. But while the APA said that the transfer of the land is not entitled to a non-resident, section 14(1) (A) of the Amerindian Act 2006 can prove them wrong. This section of the Act states that “a village Council may, in the exercise of its functions make rules governing (A) qualifications as a resident” among others.