-AG urges citizens not to fall for political manipulation

PROVIDING a detailed breakdown of the recent judgement handed down in the case against the Mocha-Arcadia squatters, Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General (AG), Anil Nandlall has affirmed that the state was justified in taking steps to remove the squatters from state lands.

Nandlall was at the time discussing the judgement on his weekly show, ‘Issues in the News,’ during which he said that the case underscores the importance of observing laws and the importance of not being misled by politicians.
“It underscores significantly that squatters have no legal rights to the land upon which they are squatting,” he said.
Against this backdrop, he noted that the land in question which is owned by the state was owned by the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) then it was transferred to the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL) and then re-transferred to the Central Housing and Planning Authority.
This, he said, highlights that the land was never the private property of any person.

“They were unable to produce evidence to substantiate that allegation and every other contention which they advanced in the case throughout that period,” he said.
The Attorney General indicated, however, that the state was able to prove the state’s ownership, GuySuCo’s ownership, and subsequently the CH&PA’s ownership, without any serious challenge.
Further to this, the state was also able to show to the court, evidence of those claimants acknowledgement of the government or state’s title in the land.
Throughout, he indicated that there was evidence which could not be disputed and even admission from those who filed suit that they were engaging the government to regularise the area.

“If it is your property as you claim and it is not the government’s property or the state’s property, why are you petitioning the state to regularise you? The state can only regularise you if it is the state’s land,” he posited.
To this end, he noted that the legal representatives for the claimants committed egregious errors as their case did not take into consideration the law and specifically, an amendment that prohibits persons from acquiring prescriptive titles to government/state lands or lands owned by any statutory authority, public authority or public corporation.
This, he said, was passed through an amendment to the Title to Land (Prescription and Limitation) Bill some years ago.

He explained, “So, legally, by the presence of that amendment or by virtue of that amendment, they could have never gotten a prescriptive title unless they showed that they acquired it even before that law came into force.”
This was not their case, he highlighted, as they failed abysmally to establish any legal rights, title, or interest in the land.
As a result, Nandlall indicated, “The state was completely justified in taking steps to remove them and their buildings and erections from the state’s land. That is the law of Guyana.”
To this end, the Attorney General highlighted that there are many lessons that can be learned from this judgement and cautioned persons occupying government lands or reserves to take note of the decision and its implications.
It clarifies the legal status of squatters or potential squatters that they have no right or title to state lands and the state or the owner can use force and remove them and their erections from the land without any liability.

Government Engagement
However, before this case was litigated, Nandlall noted that persons within that area were served with notices as far back as 2008, which requested that they move and indicated to them that the land would be used for the construction of a highway.
However, when the current administration took office, they were served with fresh notices and ministers and relevant officials from the CH&PA met with them.
With this, he said the government offered to them all, lands and houses and further compensation to move, to which some ‘sensible ones’ listened.
He affirmed that they were not going to be left empty-handed and would have received titled lands and homes.
“The government paid some $250 million in compensation to squatters to move, gave them titled lands with houses and helped them to move,” he said.
These seven persons decided not to move and were encouraged to do so by the political opposition.

OPPOSITION EXPOSED PERSONS TO PERILS
It was the leader of the opposition and many of its members; he added, who used this as a platform for politics and expose those persons to the perils they are currently experiencing.
Nandlall further noted that he has not heard any statement from the leader of the opposition or opposition parliamentarians saying what assistance they will give those persons who are now homeless.
“They used those people, abused them and discarded them and I hope that persons listening to me will internalise what I’m saying and will not become the victim of political pawns and not allow themselves to be used, abused and manipulated in the manner that the opposition politicians have used, abused and manipulated this bunch,” he said.

Against this backdrop, he highlighted several news articles which quoted the opposition leader telling the persons not to remove from the area which he described as “ancestral lands.”
With this, the Attorney General reminded that Guyana’s laws do not recognise a concept called “ancestral lands.”
While it was the opposition which encouraged the persons to stay on the lands to which they had no rights or title, no one from the opposition was there to represent those persons in court.
Quoting another article, he stated that Norton had announced that legal action would be taken against the government for crushing the homes of several persons, but this never came.
The AG remarked that no known PNC lawyers appeared for those people whom Norton promised that the opposition would represent.

“So even with that promise they never kept, they abandoned these people, using them for [a] political purpose. They held several press conferences championing this cause, misleading these people,” he said.
Another group also noted they would represent or provide assistance to represent those persons, was the International Decade for People of African Descent Association – Guyana (IDPADA-G).
This group, he said appealed to Guyanese to donate to assist with relief and noted that it will provide a full accounting for all donations and acknowledgement of receipts of donations for the purpose of tax deductions.
“Where is the money that was received? Did the people receive this money? Certainly, this money was not used to provide legal representation,” Nandlall iterated.

Similar statements, the Attorney General noted, came from opposition-aligned entities, however, none of them provided legal or other assistance to those persons whom they encouraged to squat.
Highlighting the ramifications of the case with which persons Guyanese can learn, the AG noted, “This is a classic illustration of politicians abusing and using people to advance their narrow political end and then discarding them when they milked enough public juice from the issue.”