–President Ali tells remaining Mocha squatters that lost recent High Court case

THE precarious position that the remaining Mocha squatters landed themselves in is as a result of the opposition exploiting and using them as pawns, President Dr. Irfaan Ali has said.
During a live broadcast on Thursday, the Head of State related that regardless of the outcome, he is still ready to work with those persons.
“We are a humane government; we don’t see PNC, APNU whatever form they have; we see every single citizen as a responsibility of the PPP/Civic government, and that is why we offered all those who were squatting in Mocha an opportunity; one that was fair,” Dr. Ali said.
However, there were a few squatters who refused this deal, and, according to critics, were misled by the Opposition.

Dr. Ali told those persons: “We are a government for the people; we are a government that will embrace the people every single time, and whilst they stay silent on you, your President is ready to receive you. Your President is always ready to work with you. Your government, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic government has an open door, and an open policy to make the life of every Guyanese better, including yours.”

The President said that the unfortunate situation that has played out demonstrates which side cares and which side seeks to use persons as pawns.
After failing to prove legal rights to the Mocha Arcadia/Caneview lands, the remaining squatters must pay $2 million in costs to the case’s three respondents: The Attorney-General, the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CH&PA), and the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo).
The ruling was delivered last week by Chief Justice (ag) Roxanne George, solidifying the government’s legal ownership of the lands and its right to take necessary steps to remove the squatters.
The lands were owned by GuySuCo and later transferred to the CH&PA.

Also, Attorney-at-law Ralph Ramkarran had even noted that there are lessons to be learnt from the recent dismissal of the Mocha squatters’ High Court case.
Ramkarran noted this over the weekend in his Conversation Tree blog, where he said: “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 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.