A classic example of the double standard of Government

Nov 19, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
In a community which is prone to flooding, Government’s support for an entity’s acquisition of a reserve dam and drainage canal, filling it and constructing buildings thereon and in contravention of the by-laws of the country, is further demonstration of the callousness and irresponsibility of a government to the wider society.
And all of this is happening at a time when the Government is waging a sustained campaign to demolish structures built by poor and underprivileged people on similar reserves in other areas.
All of this is happening at a time when the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) of Transparency International (TI) has again rated Guyana as one of the most corrupt in the world.
TI ranked Guyana 126 out of the 180 countries surveyed.
Having said that, I wish to refer to a letter captioned, “It is unlawful to fill in drainage canals” which appeared in the Kaieteur News edition of November 16, 2009.
The letter was written by Local Government Ministerial Advisor, Clinton Collymore, and was published in response to previous letters of mine which were published in your newspaper, questioning the ongoing demolition campaign by Works Minister Robeson Benn and the acquisition of state reserves including drainage canals by some businessmen.
Allow me to profusely thank Mr. Collymore for publicly acknowledging that it is unlawful to fill in drainage canals.
His recent reaction may be the first of many installments in the press as I intend to continue to “keep the ball rolling” by exposing and questioning the illegal acquisition of state reserves by a select few so-called entrepreneurs on the one hand, and Government’s demolition campaign being executed against the poor, helpless and suffering, who encumber the very reserves, on the other hand.
For Mr. Collymore’s edification, I wish to let him know that according to the Drainage and Irrigation Act, the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA) has absolute, total and overarching powers and control over the nation’s drainage infrastructures such as the reserved dam and canal filled-in at Peter’s Hall.
So much scope has the NDIA by the Act that it can compulsorily acquire private lands which in its opinion are necessary for drainage. The law also provides for compensation as a remedy in such compulsory acquisitions.
The canal and reserve in contention are not in the control of GuySuCo so the sale of the reserve, and probably the canal, by GuySuCo, as Mr. Collymore admitted, may be a further illegal act which must be immediately investigated.
The NDIA can now act to nullify any sale of state lands it deem necessary for the establishment of drainage infrastructure for the national good.
Mr. Collymore admitted he was the minister responsible for local government and regional development at the time when the land sale took place, but neither did his ministry, nor any other government agency objected to the passing of transport to M&M.
Can Mr. Collymore tell us why there was no opposition to the passing of transport?
For his part in not excluding the canal from the transaction, “the responsible officer was scolded,” according to Mr. Collymore.
Imagine an “official” who sold a part of our national patrimony, presumably for some sort of consideration, was “scolded.”
And it would seem that Mr. Collymore agreed with the sale of the reserve but not the canal!
The official should have been sent to jail for engaging in a fraud by selling what does not belong to him and the minister should have been fired for allowing such a blatant irregularity to have been commissioned under his watch.
If one is to properly analyse Mr. Collymore’s letter, it shows that the ministry and its agencies such as the area’s Neighbourhood Democratic Council (NDC) have been helpless spectators as an irregularity, which may be criminal, was perpetrated against the state and people of this country by a single private entity working in cahoots with an official from a public corporation.
The said entity, may have replicated this illegality elsewhere but no mention by Mr. Collymore was made about the fact that taxi drivers were expelled from a reserve at Diamond Housing Scheme to make way for the same entity. Neither did he address the sale of another reserve where, a separate entity, located at nearby Eccles.
Nor did he mention the overnight construction of houses on the reserve immediately south of the southern perimeter fence of the national stadium at Providence.
Mr. Collymore’s letter, conflicting to say the least, advised that “as a result of the ongoing blockage, Central Government has filed an injunction (against the entity in the High Court.”
Can Mr. Collymore tell us who gave permission for this latest building to be constructed on the very land?
Was approval sought and received from both the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CHPA) and the NDC? Were these permissions granted even though there is an injunction waiting to be heard in the High Court? Does this not amount to contempt of court?
My take on all of this is that permission for the construction of the “mammoth building” was ostensibly sanctioned by Mr. Collymore’s own government through the CH&PA and NDC.
In addition to the construction of this building by the entity or one of its partners, the entity continues to fill-in other sections of the canal in contravention of all the laws and by-laws.
As Mr. Collymore seems not to be aware of this present filling in of the canal, all he needs to do is take a walk behind the huge building being constructed and he will see for himself the continuation of this illegality of drainage canal-filling and building on reserves. Sir, there is no longer a drainage canal.
Mr. Collymore, as a minister and now as a ministerial advisor appears clueless as to the amount of land that must be reserved on both sides of the canal left for the specific purpose of facilitating maintenance.
He complained that the entity promised to build a “six feet wide concrete drain” and not to “encroach on seven feet of NDC reserve” but that none of this was done.
Can Mr. Collymore tell us how can a seven-foot reserve facilitate the movement of an excavator to do maintenance work on the canal and not a 15 feet reserve on both sides of the canal?
Can he further inform us how much water can be drained from the backlands and conservancy through a six feet wide canal? His answers may prove to be technological and hydrological breakthroughs which may serve our national interest in the maintenance of drainage canals and the draining of water from flooded areas.
In what could be regarded as fruitless meetings with a “top management official” of the entity, Mr. Collymore mentioned in his missive that he (Mr. Collymore as minister) “insisted…. that the drainage canal should not be filled in. In the end, he meekly admitted that, “apparently neither of us convinced each other.”
Why was it not a ministerial instruction to the effect that, “no filling in of the canal will be tolerated”, instead of him “insisting” that it not be done? Mr. Collymore sounded very disappointed and helpless.
The fact that Mr. Collymore at the time of the meeting did not adopt a no-nonsense approach with dealing with this problem speaks volume on his performance as a minister. How could he have allowed this travesty to prevail at the peril of the people who depend on this canal to drain their lands in times of flooding?
He himself admitted in his letter that the area is “prone to flooding” and in 2004 residents filed a writ against the NDC “claiming several million dollars in flood damage.”
There is no statute of limitations in such matters and the NDIA must utilize its immense powers to compulsorily reacquire the land and re-establish the drainage canal so that flooding in contiguous areas can be avoided and the vital service of accelerated draining of the conservancy can take place simultaneously.
Editor, in concluding, kindly allow me to state that the reserve on which sits this entity, is a classic example of the double standard of this Government.
Some in the administration may be operating in cahoots with the business sector as is so glaringly demonstrated in the above matters and, in the process, may even be interfering with the administration of justice.
Selected officials of Government seem dazzled by the opulence of the rich and blinded to the needs of the poor.
Good governance is about treating all with respect and dignity and not with the contempt we see in the ongoing demolition campaign.
Maybe the time has arrived for a class action suit to be filed against Government.
Mohamed I. Ally

---

---