-highlights importance of choosing legal channels over ‘political entanglements’ in state lands disputes

NOTING that senior opposition figures mislead Mocha squatters as part of a political scheme rooted in falsehoods and creating confusion, attorney-at-law Ralph Ramkarran has noted that there are lessons to be learnt from the recent dismissal of their High Court case.

Ramkarran noted this over the weekend in his Conversation Tree blog where he indicated that, “The Mocha-Arcadia squatters were grossly misled in an effort to politicise and/or ‘ethnicise’ a situation by confrontation.”

The case which was brought by the three persons seeking relief for the demolition of their homes, alleged constitutional beaches, deprivation of property rights and degrading treatment.

However, Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George ruled against the applicants, stating that they had no legal claim to the land and had refused multiple opportunities for relocation.

Giving some background about the matter, Ramkarran said that the dispute stemmed from a long-standing issue of squatting in Mocha -Arcadia, where several residents occupied state-owned land that was designated for a major roadway project. The majority of squatters accepted government compensation and alternative housing, while seven of them refused to relocate despite negotiations dating back to 2008.

He said the Ministry of Housing had offered the squatters substantial compensation and alternative land, but some rejected the offers outright, with one person reportedly demanding as much as $60 million.

In January 2023, after years of unsuccessful negotiations, the government proceeded with the demolition of the remaining structures, triggering a confrontation between officials and the remaining squatters.

Ramkarran highlighted that the opposition played a significant role in supporting the residents, with senior figures present at the site, framing the evictions as discriminatory against African Guyanese. The dispute quickly took on racial overtones, with critics comparing the demolition to ethnic cleansing and apartheid.

The Chief Justice’s ruling rejected the claims made by the applicants, stating that once the residents had refused the government’s offer of relocation, they became trespassers on state-owned land. “The applicants would have become trespassers after being asked to remove from the land for which they had no title and to which they did not lay claim by any action or proceedings. They refused to move, and the owner or its agents would have been entitled to remove them. They stayed at their peril,” Justice George stated in her ruling.

Further to this, the court found that the applicants’ claims of constitutional violation were unfounded.

According to Ramkarran, the ruling raises concerns about the role of political influence in land disputes.

He added that the squatters were misled into confrontation by political actors who sought to exploit the situation for their own agendas.

Instead of accepting reasonable offers for relocation, the holdout residents engaged in a prolonged resistance that ultimately led to the loss of their homes, with no compensation or alternative housing secured.

“They were on the wrong side; their fellow squatters had settled. What did they expect to gain, and what did their advisers expect them to gain? Judging from the court cases, they clearly expected the court to justify trespassing,” Ramkarran noted.

He added that the outcome of this case serves as a cautionary tale for residents involved in land disputes. While grievances and negotiations are a part of any resettlement process, the case underscores the importance of engaging through legal channels and avoiding political entanglements that could jeopardise legitimate claims.

With the court’s ruling against the applicants, the aggrieved Mocha-Arcadia squatters now find themselves displaced, left without compensation, and abandoned by the political actors.