THE CHEDDI JAGAN RESEARCH CENTRE ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT RACE

Jan 01, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The revocation of the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre Incorporated (CJRCI) lease is already being touted as a racial issue and has the potential, in the absence of urgent clarity of the issues, to deepen the entrenched racial divide between our Afro and Indo brothers and sisters. I urge every Guyanese of every racial and political extraction to think critically about these issues and not let our politicians interpret these issues for us. If we leave these delicate matters to the politicians only, then the outcome is certain; we the masses of Guyanese will widen the ocean the politicians have carved between our Afro and Indo brothers and sisters.
For the Red House to be validly leased to the CJRCI certain things must be done. The Red House sits on government lands, and the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission is the custodian of all government lands. This will explain why the government must be a party to the lease contract. While the land remains vested in the government, the building having been declared a National Monument is vested in the National Trust; and for this reason the National Trust must be a party to the lease. One very important thing we have to take note of is that by virtue of the Lands Department Act of Guyana, government lands can only be leased or sold with the sanction of the President at the material time.
It wasn’t until 2012 (12 years after the establishment of the CJRCI) that what appears to be a lease for the occupation of the Red House was entered into. What appears to be missing from this lease is any evidence that it was sanctioned by President Ramotar who was the President at the time, and who was also one of the incorporators of the CJRCI. This would mean that there was no lease of the lands occupied by the Red House to the CJRCI. What I find curious though (unless I misunderstood this) is that the Coalition Government has referenced section 3 of the National Trust Act in support of its argument against the existence of a valid lease in favour of CJRCI.
The material part of this section states that the National Trust cannot lease any ‘land’ without the approval of the relevant Minister. This would suggest that the National Trust owns part of the land upon which the Red House rests as well as the Red House. I am not sure if this is in fact the case (given that the National Monument may include land comprising or adjacent to the monument). Suffice it to say that there seems to be no approval by the relevant minister. Another limitation of the purported lease is that for it to be valid it must comply with certain publication and registration requirements by law; it is a 99 year lease and all long leases must comply with these requirements. It appears that the lease has neither been published nor registered in accordance with the Deeds Registry Act.
From all indications the lease is invalid. It is really a void lease and there is nothing to revoke. Both the Jagdeo and the Ramotar administrations failed to regularise this situation during their respective tenure. Now let us examine this irregular occupation of the Red House by the CJRCI. The CJRCI has at a minimum irregularly occupied the Red House for the past 16 years; and if I were to use strict legal language the occupation is an illegal one.
And since the Red House is a National Monument its maintenance is and has been the responsibility of the National Trust. So even if a nominal fee were paid for its occupation, I take it for granted that maintaining it out of the public purse for the number of years since it has been declared a National Monument and for the period it has been maintained during CJRCI’s occupation has cost a generous penny.
The Coalition Government claims that it has been in negotiation with the PPP for perhaps a year to enlarge the legacies preserved at the Centre to accommodate those of all former and future presidents. And its failure in this regard and its inability to reach a more peaceable outcome to the matter of the void lease has prompted its ‘revocation’ of the lease. I condemn this proposal for a number of reasons.
I’ll offer two. Firstly, the Red House has culturally become synonymous with Jagan. To enlarge the legacies housed and celebrated there simply would not, and not unreasonably so, be palatable to the PPP. This resistance would only be compounded by the structural (and inevitable name) change which would be required to facilitate such venture. Secondly, the potential disregarding of an illegality should not be used as a bargaining chip by the Coalition Government. This in my humble estimation is a tacit sanction of this illegality.
The Coalition Government continues to fail on the public relations front. And for this reason the CJRCI matter is easily being spun as a racial issue to deepen entrenched racial divisions in our country. It is imperative that I deconstruct and rebut Jagdeo’s racial pandering. Jagdeo told the media at the ‘vigil’ that ‘if you look at the justice of the issue, Cheddi Jagan was a critical iconic figure….The building is dedicated to learning about Cheddi…. I gave Burnham family prime land…free of cost’.
The rhetoric here is clear. You are all intelligent enough to comprehend it. The thing is my people, the ‘justice of the issue’ demands that the rule of law must prevail. No democratic society must flout the rule of law in preservation of the legacy of anyone, regardless of who that person is. And I strongly doubt that any leader committed to justice and democracy would want his or her legacy preserved by offending against the very principles he or she fought to safeguard. This is not an issue of Jagan versus Burnham, or Indians versus Blacks. It is a rule of law issue and should be presented as such…by the Coalition Government, by the PPP, and by the media.
I am an admirer of Jagan. And I would personally advocate for the preservation of his legacy once I resolve it is being trifled with. And I too have come to associate the Red House with Jagan. I say without reservation that the Coalition Government’s removal of the CJRCI in view of the invalid lease should have been done in a more sensitive manner. Adequate time should have been given to facilitate removal of the contents of the Red House.
Ronald J. Daniels

---

---