The National Trust and Red House

Jan 06, 2017 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

The arguments being advanced in relation to the effect of the National Trust Act on property rights to Red House are self-defeating. They do not lend credibility to the actions of the President or those who attempted to gain possession of Red House recently.
It is for the Court to adjudicate on the lawfulness of the government’s actions in terms of its attempts to evict the present occupants of State House. The government has the option when the time comes to use the National Trust Act as part of its defence.
Such an invocation is however likely to be the counter to the government’s case of establishing the invalidity of the lease previously granted to the Cheddi Jagan Research Institute or whatever name is ascribed to its legal personality.
Rights may be accrued by ‘operation of law’ but property only changes ownership by the perfecting of the act of vesting. The government will have its day in Court. It will have the opportunity to establish that the act of vesting Red House in the name of the National Trust was perfected. But if this argument is used, then the National Trust will have to explain why, for all these years, it allowed the present tenants of Red House to operate without any protest from the Trust about unlawful occupation or trespass.
The government’s claim to trespass is only relevant to the extent that it can prove that it had possession of the land. Trespass is not a criminal offence. A remedy for trespass has to be pursued through civil action. In order to do so, the claimant must establish “possession”. It is for the Court to decide whether the government had “possession” of Red House on the day the edict of eviction was issued.
If in the case of the Red House, the government can prove that ownership was vested properly in the National Trust, this does not automatically grant to the Trust possession of the property. The National Trust, therefore, cannot sue for trespass on this basis.
If the government claims ownership of Red House by the National Trust, it will also be confronted by a number of legal obstacles, none of which works in its favour.
Section 15 of the National Trust Act addresses the designation of monuments as national monuments and the vesting of such monuments in the National Trust. This Section must be read in conformity with Section 5, which delineates the functions of the National Trust. The Trust is principally concerned with preservation of property, of beauty, or historic interest, and the vesting of property in its name is more concerned with ensuring the preservation of monuments, and not so much with ownership and control.
It is not the objective of the National Trust Act to dispossess owners of monuments of public interest, whether those monuments are publicly or privately owned. This is made clearer by Section 19 of the said National Trust Act, which allows the National Trust to be designated guardians of monuments of national interest, regardless of who owns that monument, be that entity public or private.
If the government advances the argument that the National Trust is the owner of Red House by virtue of the provisions of the National Trust Act, then the President and the Ministry of the Presidency have no locus standi in relation to Red House.
If, as is being presently contended, it is the National Trust which owns Red House, then the President has no say in this matter. The Ministry of the Presidency has no limb on which to attempt to take possession of the property and to evict its present tenants.
If the argument is that the National Trust owns Red House, then it is the National Trust alone which has to give notice to its tenant, not the Ministry of the Presidency. The arguments being advanced at present about the National Trust and Red House are self-defeating to the government’s case.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News