Dear Editor,

THE recent landmark rulings by Chief Justice(ag) The Honourable Madam Roxanne George whereby Head of State and Commander-in-Chief H.E. President David Granger has been deemed to have acted unconstitutionally and unlawfully are cause for serious concern, due in particular to the implications for the rule of law in this country and democracy generally.

It is important then that we deeply examine the rulings in light of the abject failure of state attorneys to adequately represent and defend the President’s actions despite mountains of evidence to do so. It is only fair for the general public and the world to be made aware of the pertinent reasons for these matters going to the courts in the first place, and to determine whether their damnable conclusions are justified.

As a layman, I am not the competent person to do so; but being a resident of this community for just over 60 years with intimate knowledge of all issues relating to these lands, a former school teacher and a tutor with the Institute of Distance and Continuing Education (UG); a community leader; and a middle-management employee of the MMA/ADA for several years, I feel compelled to offer my “two bits” on these rulings for the third time in two months ( see SN 2017-11-21& GC 2017-12-09).

In my humble opinion, the rulings seem woefully lacking for their dearth of an investigative element, For a cursory check would have revealed that the leases granted by former President Donald Ramotar are for lands that have been occupied by two registered co-operative societies for over three decades. These co-operative societies remain registered. Seafield Co-operative Land Society Ltd Reg. No. 1720 and No. 40 Farmers Co-operative Society Reg.No. 1513 have developed, maintained and paid for these lands through the decades up to the time they were arbitrarily seized from these societies and given out to other individuals in the form of 50-year leases.

The actions of Mr Ramotar’s administration have resulted in deep social acrimony amongst villagers, numerous police interventions, enormous legal costs and a legacy of discord in our villages. Moreover, by these actions, Mr Ramotar’s administration seems to have violated the The MMA/ADA Act 69:11, which defines its relationship with entities and institutions in the region and does not in any way allow the MMA to tamper with the operations of these entities/ institutions (MMA Act69:11: 4 (1) h; Sec. 21(1,2,3).The Co-op Act, Laws of Guyana, Chapter 88:01. Sec. 38 (1) to 46(3) as well as our constitution Articles 11 and 16 all seem to have been violated by the MMA and the administration of Mr. Ramotar. However, it is President Granger who sought to correct these injustices and unlawful acts who has been deemed to have acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally.

But do judges investigate prior to giving their rulings? Or do Judges familiarise themselves with all the issues relating to matters before them? In the cases under reference, this doesn’t seem to be so. But my recent experience with Honourable Justice Madam Melissa Robertson shows at least some do. Appearing before her for two overseas-based Guyanese for whom I am their power of attorney on land issues was very timely and educational. One case had to do with the granting of a transport for an individual whose parent died intestate. The other had to do with a parcel of land occupied by a family for decades, but another family had a valid transport for all the lands in as many decades.

The cases have been subjected to some of the most rigid examinations and investigations, both into the current status and history of the lands. All documents have been examined and questioned. And most astoundingly, the Honourable Judge made a site visit to verify some of the information given to her. This was after either one or both attorneys made the request. It was a marvel to see the Honourable Judge arriving in an ordinary hire car with a few of her staff to do a site visit. On arrival, she questioned “Do I have to put on long boots?” To which we replied, “No Justice, you don’t have to.” Imagine, a judge prepared to put on long boots to get it right.
Mr Robert Corbin, former opposition leader and Mr Ramesh Rajkumar are the attorneys in one of the cases mentioned. They can verify. Now these plots of lands are less than one acre each.

Now juxtapose the above-mentioned cases with that of the two co-op societies with an average of 800 acres combined and let us question ourselves whether the judge in this matter did anything near what Justice Robertson did to get to the bottom of the issues at hand. Certainly, had there been some questioning of the history of the lands under consideration and the legitimacy of the actions of Mr Ramotar in issuing those leases, then our current President Mr Granger would not have been deemed to have acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally.

Unsurprisingly, the MMA that was part of the writ served on the attorney general did not contribute to the defence of the actions of the President. The MMA was a key element in the seizing of the co-ops lands, yet there is nothing in the case that refers to a submission by the MMA. With state attorneys at sea on the whole matter, former Attorney General Mr Anil Nandlall and his team could not have had it better. It must be mentioned that our lands were seized just prior to the holding of Regional and General elections 2015, and a senior functionary of the MMA/ADA is alleged to have campaigned on behalf of the then ruling party, both in the 2011 and 2015 Regional and General elections, contrary to public service rules.

That same official is the one who should have supplied the Attorney General’s Chambers with the relevant information in defence of the President’s actions, but this seemed to have never happened. Sampson in the Bible told those who answered one of his riddles that “If ye had not ploughed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle”; Judges 14:18. Now put the pieces together and read between the lines and you will see why the Attorney General’s Chambers lost two cases in a row to the former attorney general with complete ease. Oh, for the complexity and cunning of our political and judicial reality!

Editor, I am not attempting to do PR work for the government. I am not nearly qualified. But I am conscious of the truism that “a lie told often enough becomes the truth” Vladimir Lenin and “ …the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie” Joseph Goebbels—Internet.
To be continued….
In the meantime, I am publicly inviting socio-political commentators: the likes of Mr Freddie Kissoon, Dr David Hinds, Mr Tacuma Ogunseye, Mr Lincoln Lewis and others to assess former President Mr Donald Ramotar’s diametrically opposed actions in the Villages of Cotton Tree, Rampur and Shieldstown, as against that in No. 40 and Seafield Villages. I would like for them to also look at the reasons why the former President would take away half of the small land holdings of a mother of six children( at the time, five at school from nursery to secondary, and the eldest just starting teachers’ college) despite her personal pleadings to him and senior MMA officials. Also, why would the former President give 15 acres or 60% of another farmer’s holding to a family that already had over 100 acres of state lands.

Regards
Patrick Hamilton