Latest update May 16th, 2026 12:35 AM
Latest News
- Govt. now admits to US$97M settlement to Wales contractor
- Changing Guyana’s oil contract calls for political will – T&T Energy Strategist
- Israel kills seven in Lebanon, agrees ‘ceasefire’ extension at talks in U.S.
- ‘Deportee’ jailed 18 years for Corentyne rum shop murder
- Guyana and Suriname Presidents advance talks on Corentyne River Bridge, trade and energy
Guyana is not the craziest country
Dear Editor,
In the January 27th 2011 issue of the Kaieteur News at page 10, there appeared an article by columnist Freddie Kissoon, captioned, “Craziest Country in the World”.
The opinion expressed by Kissoon is wrong. Parate execution is still a remedy available to Municipalities and Neighbouring Democratic Councils against defaulters.
I note that Kissoon cites Rockcliffe that parate execution virtually died when the two amendments referred to by Kisson were passed by the Hoyte Administration.
According to Kissoon, Rockcliffe did not say that parate execution died.
Nevertheless Kissoon went on to state and, I quote:-
“Despite this nightmare, the Georgetown City Council is owed $1billion which the law prevents it from collecting from people and companies who refuse to pay “general rate” (which according to Mr. Rockcliffe is the correct designation for what we commonly refer to as rates and taxes.”)
He also stated and I again quote:-
“But if you fail to pay the city your general rate, no action can be taken against you. Is there another country like Guyana?”
If Rockcliffe did inform that parate execution is virtually dead he could not have meant that the remedy is not legally available. Yet Kissoon made a quantum leap and by doing so boldly stated that the law prevents the remedy.
What in fact the two amendments intended to accomplish and have accomplished is the prevention of ‘land sharks’ buying at a nominal price at parate execution and later selling to make a huge profit.
Prior to the amendments, parate execution was a remedy to recover only the general rate due. If a small sum was owing to a Council then once a bid was made equivalent to that sum the property was sold to the bidder. That practice resulted in poor persons losing their properties for a small sum and the bidder (execution purchaser) enriching himself.
I repeat, those amendments did not take away the legal remedy of parate execution. What they achieved was the prevention of enrichment of execution purchasers.
Section 220 of the Municipal and District Councils Act, Chapter 28:01, which deals with parate execution was amended by the 1988 Act by introducing several sub-sections which have the following effect:-
(a) Before a property is put up for sale at parate execution it must be valued by the Chief Valuation officer.
(b) The bid must start at a reserve price, not below that value.
(c) The sale of the property must be advertised in three issues of a daily newspaper.
There are other provisions contained in the 1988 amendment to discourage land speculators.
The amendments by the other 1988 act in so far Neighbouring Democratic Councils are concerned certain similar provisions.
I concede that, since the amendments, it is more burdensome on the Municipalities and Neighbouring Democratic Councils to recover general rate by parate execution. However, this is a far cry from saying the remedy no longer exists.
Perhaps, Kissoon would in future do the necessary research when he is commenting on legal matters.
Murseline Bacchus
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.