Dear Editor,

Over the past few months H.E President David Granger’s actions as they relate to lands at Plan Ayr No. 40 and Seafield Villages has been deemed unconstitutional and unlawful (SN 2017-08-10, 2017-12-12) by Chief Justice (ag) Honorable Madam Roxanne George. On surface the AG chambers seem unequal to the challenge put up by the former Attorney General Mr Anil Nandlall and his team. But does this have to be so? Did our current Attorney General have a team of lawyers to defend the actions of the first citizen. It doesn’t seem so.

Somewhere in the Bible it is said, “who is this that darkens counsel without knowledge?” and again it is said “my people are destroyed because of the lack of knowledge.” Surely, whoever represented the Attorney General’s chambers at the High Court on the above matter displayed an astounding lack of knowledge of all the issues relating to these lands and with 1.8 millions dollars costs accrued, consequences should follow for the sheer sloppiness in which the actions of the President was presented and defended. But why should anyone lack knowledge when the scope for knowing anything on any issue has never been so easy with technology, et al? What is more; the strenuous efforts to legitimise injustice is gaining traction with each failure of the premier legal chambers of the government.

Editor, the lands to which Justice George gave her oral judgement on are lands that have been occupied by two registered Co-operative Societies for over three decades. These Co-op Societies (Seafield Cooperative Land Society Limited Registered No. 1720 and No. 40 Farmers Cooperative Society Limited Registered No. 1513) remain registered and are now members of the recently re-constituted Regional Co-operative Society Union and serve on its executive. These lands have been developed, maintained and paid for over these decades by these Societies.

In 2014, the MMA/ADA advertised that unless outstanding arrears owed to the Authority by the Societies are paid, the lands they occupy would be repossessed (SN, March 5, 2014). The Societies combined paid in excess of ten million dollars to the MMA. Realising that their intended objective would not be attained through monetary penalty, the then chairman of MMA plainly said that whether we paid or not, the lands would be repossessed and redistributed to others in the villages since he is not dealing with Co-ops but with state lands.

All this was done with total disregard for the MMA Act, the Laws of Guyana chapter 88: 01 and the constitution of Guyana. The sheer arbitrariness of MMA’s actions should have been enough evidence to win the Attorney General’s case. But the old adage is applicable here: if you fail to prepare; then prepare to fail. These matters were not presented to the Judge.

In the case of Seafield Cooperative Land Society Limited, the Order or Rule Nisi of Certiorari granted on the 15th day of October, 2014, by Honourable Mr Justice Nareshwar Harnanan was made absolute on 20th July, 2016 by the Honourable Madam Justice Diana Insanally; quashing MMA’s decision to reclassify lands…belonging to the Society and to allocate them to others…on the grounds of excess of lack of jurisdiction, arbitrariness, unreasonableness, ultra vires, null and void and in breach of its constitutional right s to protect its property.

One is now left to ponder the legal ramifications of two distinct rulings by two Judges on the same land issue. This is in addition to the ensuing conflicts that will arise amongst villagers. As a layman, one also wonders how one Judge tries a case and another judge who was not a part of that trial gives the ruling.
Editor, I cannot go into all the other details that justify H.E. President Granger revoking the leases that were unfairly granted to those who are not members of our Societies ( some of which were published on 21st November, 2017). MMA could have easily given our fellow villagers lands without causing the conflicts that have arisen as a result of its actions.

Yet, with mountains of evidence to justify the actions of the President, who would want to go before an erudite Judge and tell her that the President did what he did because he is the President and he has immunity. This under representation of the President is surely shameful.

Regards
Patrick Hamilton