THE LAW AND THE CARPETBAGGERS

Mar 13, 2011 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

A friend of a top official of the government is very much interested in obtaining a piece of property that is owned by the State but which is presently occupied by another person.
The present occupier is not a squatter on the land but rather enjoys legitimate occupancy.
The person has developed the property to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and is not prepared to walk away from that sort of investment.
Another property owned by the State is nearby to an extensive tract owned by another friend of a top official of the government.
That friend would love to get his hands on the property so that he can extend his personal kingdom.
But the person occupying the property, this time unlawfully, is not willing to relinquish rights to the property.
Last Thursday in the National Assembly, there was a debate about a Bill which proposes to forfeit prescriptive rights for State land. The opposition in the National Assembly was opposed to this Bill. During the debate, the opposition concentrated almost all of its efforts on defending the interests of those persons who are squatting – centered around those who are squatting on state land and who when the Bill is enacted into law would no longer be able to apply for prescriptive rights.
The opposition failed to appreciate that this Bill also has serious implications for private individuals who have leases or rent agreements with government for public property and who, if the government refuses to pass transport to them, may lose all of their investments.
The Bill that was passed, therefore, has an additional shortcoming which has not been picked up by the main opposition.
The Bill prohibits prescription on all state land and property, and will also affect persons who are legitimately occupying these lands and properties for years.
These persons may have developed these properties and now can be dispossessed of their legitimate expectations of their property if the government refuses to pass transport to them.
Legislation dealing with property is rarely enacted to help the poor. It is invariably, throughout the world, enacted to aid the rich, or for the purposes of public order.
The government has a case when it says that there is rampant land-grabbing in the country.
This has to be stopped. Persons are squatting all over on state property and then applying for prescriptive rights.
They are also squatting on private property and after twelve years are applying for title by prescription.
The government has a right to be concerned about land-grabbing.
The number of applications for prescriptive titles filed in Guyana over the past five years would make one believe that there is a serious legal problem as regards the ownership of property.
As such, the government must take steps to restore public order to its reserves and to Crown lands.
The situation must be brought under control, since there is indeed land-grabbing by ordinary citizens.
The government does not have the machinery to effectively police all State land and reserves, or any way of discouraging squatting on these reserves.
So this legislation will remove the right to grab State land by prescriptive titling.
But there is also land-grabbing by the friends of the government, and the main beneficiaries of this law that has been passed could well end up being the powerful friends of You-Know-Who.
This law unwittingly becomes a weapon in their hands and could allow them to grab even more State properties.
It is possible that if influential friends have their way, they can convince the government not to renew the leases or rent agreements for those properties which these friends are keen to add to their collection.
Those individuals who are presently lawfully occupying state property under lease or rent agreements and who may have spent millions developing those properties can no longer exercise the option of seeking title by prescription if the government fails to renew their leases or rent agreements. They thus stand to lose everything.
This is the danger in the present legislation. The danger is not about some poor man who has been occupying state land for years and who will never obtain prescriptive rights.
That poor man may still be able to convince the State to sell him the land on which he is squatting. Or he may live out in years squatting.
But what about the person who is legally occupying state land which is being eyed up by some friend as indicated? What happens to this person and his investment?
The opposition has not seen this far in relation to what could happen because of the passage of this Bill prohibiting title by prescription for State land.
The opposition should see these implications, because there is a group of individuals in this country who are bent on grabbing as much as they can get, and this law that was passed actually makes it easier for them to gain lawful control of more state property. It is a weapon in their hand to lawfully grab land.

---

---