THE High Court’s ruling against the Mocha-Arcadia squatters is a poignant reminder of the dangers of political manipulation and disregard for due process.
Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George’s decision to dismiss the case brought by three former residents who sought relief over the demolition of their homes, exposed the dangerous consequences of allowing land disputes to be hijacked by political agendas.

The Mocha-Arcadia saga, born from a protracted squatting problem on State lands designated for a major highway expansion, unfortunately saw the opposition forces seize upon and attempt to racialise it for political ends.
Prominent attorney-at-law Ralph Ramkarran aptly described the squatters as being “grossly misled in an effort to politicise and/or ‘ethnicise’ a situation by confrontation”.

The misplaced rebellion came with much cost to the holdout residents. While the majority of the squatters easily accepted the government’s compensation and housing, a few incited by opposition rhetoric declined relocation offers.
The government negotiated compensation packages, and even offered expansive land alternatives while the residents acted unreasonably, with demands as high as $60 million from one said individual.

Equally, it will be difficult to exonerate the opposition, which is of the view that the eviction exercise was discriminately against African Guyanese and, therefore, inflammatory comparisons with ethnic cleansing and Apartheid were quickly conjured up, poisoning from the start any prospects for an orderly resolution of this issue.

The reckless politicising of this matter misled not only the squatters but undermined a legitimate endeavour by the government to advance a significant infrastructure project.

Chief Justice George’s ruling unequivocally stated that once the residents refused the government’s relocation offers, they became trespassers on State-owned land. The court’s rejection of the applicants’ claims of constitutional violations further underscores the baselessness of their position.
This outcome raises serious questions about the ethics of political figures in the APNU+AFC who encouraged this confrontational approach, knowing full well the legal realities of the situation.

The Mocha-Arcadia case is a cautionary word for all Guyanese, in that it raises the critical issue of conducting land disputes through appropriate legal channels, rather than acceding to the siren call of political opportunists.
In this regard, the squatters, now having been misled with false promises and inflammatory rhetoric, find themselves much worse off than if they had accepted the original offers presented to them by the government.

As Guyana consolidates and continues on its growth trajectory, this should be of interest to any Guyanese and political leadership with a firm emphasis on rule of law rather than confrontation, hate, and divisiveness.

The sad outcomes for the holdouts of Mocha-Arcadia, to date, displaced, uncompensated, and cast like garbage in a dump site by their so-called political allies-should provide for serious contemplation on what leadership entails, coupled with outcomes to be derived from exploiting simple people for gain.
A lesson dearly learnt from this costly experience is that, in any land dispute in the future, the parties concerned should enter into good-faith negotiations, respect due process, and prioritise long-term citizens’ welfare over temporary political gain in the interest of creating a just and prosperous Guyana.