Latest update March 20th, 2025 5:10 AM
Mar 14, 2017 Letters
Dear Editor,
In a letter in the Kaieteur News dated March 12 and captioned “Mr, Jagdeo has constitutional immunities from criminal prosecutions”, Anil Nandlall first dealt with the housing policies of the PPP government and goes on to defend the sale of land to those in Pradoville 2 at way below market value. He argues that these sales were within the framework of government policies giving subsidised land to its people.
He says; “The provision of subsidized housing has always been a fundamental priority of successive People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Governments since 1953″. I must concur. The Housing drive would have been handled by the Ministry of Housing. On the other hand, and if I am not mistaken, NICIL started as a privatisation unit to sell the people’s property at the best possible price. State land would be lodged with NICIL and it is supposed to sell same on the market to realise the best possible price.
Maybe Anil Nandalal could share with us the documents that assigned NICIL with the task of sharing out subsidised house lots. And even if indeed it was so tasked should there not have been transparency and equal opportunity for all. Could Anil say if the sale of these plots of land at Prodoville 2 was advertised and if not would this not constitute a breach? For one to obtain subsidised land from the Minstry of Housing there were certain procedures that allowed for fair distribution. There are also certain conditionalities that were in place. One is that one cannot have a property in his or her name. The other is that one would not have sold a property that he or she owned. One had to swear an affidavit to the effect.
I would like to ask the learned Anil Nandalall if he would agree that there is a distinct difference between the functions of these two institutions. I ask the following questions and am hoping the prolific writer Anil Nandalall would provide us with some answers. Did those persons who obtain house lots in Pradoville 2 sign any affidavit? Is it not a fact that Mr. Bharat Jahdeo obtained a house lot at Pradoville One and that he built a house, never lived in it and sold it at a fantastic profit? Is it not true that other persons who obtained the “subsidised” property at Pradoville 2 also were the owners of other properties? Would the issue of land to them not therefore constitute a breach of the conditionalities set by the Government? Conditionalities set to prevent speculation and we have information that a number of them have already sold their Pradoville properties at considerable profits. Would it not seem that the people of this country were being robbed by not getting money for value?
From where I stand, it is possible that the sale of these properties could be considered as a well planned conspiracy to defraud the people of this country; I am at a loss why ordinary poor people would want to support the giveaway of their land, the sale of which at market value would have provided funds to enhance their well being.
With regards to the constitutional immunity of the president, I have a previous letter arguing that the immunity of the President from prosecution for criminal and civil private acts is stayed for the duration of his presidency, but I will do so again in another letter. Just ask yourself if the President were to kill or rape someone would he be immune from prosecution?
Rajendra Bisessar
BSc Sociology, LLB
Mar 20, 2025
2025 Commissioner of Police T20 Cup… Kaieteur Sports- Guyana Police Force team arrested the Presidential Guards as they handed them a 48-run defeat when action in the 2025 Commissioner of Police...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- There was a time when an illegal immigrant in America could live in the shadows with some... more
Antigua and Barbuda’s Ambassador to the US and the OAS, Ronald Sanders By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- In the latest... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]