THE current move by Government to acquire two private lots under the Acquisition for Public Purposes (Amendment) Act is not new to societies; neither is it illegal, given that land, in the final analysis, belongs to the state.Accusations and counter-accusations being made by members of the APNU+AFC Administration and the former PPP/C Administration — which tend toward political rhetoric — would not bring needed clarity and resolution to the matter. The public is thus far being advised that the issue of Government’s intent to acquire the Carmichael and Middle streets’ land to expand the Attorney General’s Chambers has its genesis in the PPP/C Administration.

Former president Mr. Donald Ramotar came out and challenged Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams, to provide the evidence that his administration had initiated the act of acquiring the lands. The Attorney General under the PPP Administration, Mr. Anil Nandlall, came out and attempted to refute the claim, but conceded that an approach was made to the current owners of the land.

The evidence before the society is that the intellectual author for acquiring the lands was the PPP/C Administration. It also confirms that the APNU+AFC Administration has put in place the activation of the legal mechanism to acquire the lands. The concern in the public is not only about the acquisition, but also the manner in which it is being pursued, and the persons that are involved.

Attorney General Basil Williams has informed that Nandlall advised that the GoG needs to pay $600 million for ownership, while the APNU+AFC Administration is saying it is prepared to pay not more than $50 million, based on the evaluation received. $50 million may seem an inconsiderate sum; but the purpose for which the land is being acquired, how it is being used by its current owners, and how they intend to develop the land also has to be factored in.

Although the law gives Government the right to acquire property, it need not be forgotten that such decision requires that regard be paid to due diligence and consideration. The owners of the land in contention are the Beharry Group of Companies (BGC) and Mrs. Clarrisa Riehl, Guyana’s High Commissioner to Canada, appointed under the present administration.

It has, through surrogates, been reported in some sections of the media that the ambassador was blind-sided by the announcement, and is not interested in selling the property.
Mrs. Riehl’s appointment as ambassador is political, since she is not a career diplomat. As a politician for some time, she was a Member of Parliament on the PNCR slate, and was elected Deputy Speaker on the nomination of the PNCR, in which she has been a member and has served on its Executive. The AG is Chairman of the PNCR, making him and the ambassador political colleagues. The PPP/C is the political rival of the PNCR, and from the position that party has taken on the issue, it seems to be more concerned about the ambassador’s welfare than her colleague is.

Elsewhere in political conversations it is wondered why the administration to which the ambassador belongs would move to acquire her land without her consent, and is using argument for so doing by laying the blame at the feet of the PPP/C.

Perception, real or contrived, in politics and governance has significant sway and influence. It is through those lens that people often form first and sometimes lasting impressions on issues. From a legal standpoint, no law has been broken; but where the law is perceived to be encroaching on persons’ legitimate interests, judicious thought and action are required.

Arguably, this matter and many others in society must be handled with the human touch, which is necessary in building positive relations, ensuring social cohesion, and forging national unity.