Some Facts about disputed Friendship, EBD lands

Nov 07, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

I have read a few accounts of some submissions to the Commission of Inquiry on Land; on the problems of Section D, Friendship East Bank Demerara. Some seventeen years ago, I was asked by the most entitled but timid group of owners of Section D to assist them in their quest to assert their ownership rights.
That group was the Cameron faction of the Gideon Roberts descendants. They have been unable to achieve any success as they have been overpowered and pushed aside by the more aggressive and lesser entitled of the descendants of Robert Roberts. There are five groups of heirs to the Gideon Roberts estate. I have heard reference to the area of Section D being one square mile or 640 acres. That fact has never been brought to bear in all the contesting over Friendship.
The Plantation of Friendship, East Bank Demerara was acquired in the year 1856 by a number of freed African persons.
The estate was divided into 50 lots (Lots 1 to 50); Lot 1 being at its northern boundary and Lot 50 at the south.
The plan shows the section south of Lot 50 is divided as follows: The western portion beginning from the Demerara River to about 50 rods east, that portion called Sophia Town; East of Sophia Town is Section D or Undivided; Undivided was owned by the owners of Lots 1 to 50 of Friendship on the East Bank of Demerara.
Robert Roberts, one of the signatories to the transport, had purchased two lots. By 1922, Robert Roberts owned only Lot 45 in Friendship and therefore only one share of land in Undivided or Section D.
Up to the time of his death, his last surviving relative was all but his eldest son, Noah. The Roberts clan owned only one share in section D. It was Noah’s son, Gideon, who acquired twenty shares of land in Section D by adverse possession. The possession was established by renting the southern section of Undivided to farmers.
This was continued through his daughter, Elmoria, who married Soltau Cameron. Soltaus and Elmoria Cameron’s daughter, Sybil Waddle, continued to rent the land as can be substantiated by the Cappel’s Plan of 1986.
Gideon Cameron’s probated will, showed that he owned 21 Undivided shares of Section D. Those 21 shares included the one share which was the property of Robert Roberts. A certain Land Court Judge had said that the Cappell Plan of 1986 should be used as the guide to determine the ownership of land in Friendship at that time. There was a time lag between the issue of that plan and the activation of the finalisation of the Registration process. It should be noted that The Government of Guyana owns land at the southern end of the numbered lots; e.g. Land on which the Friendship Secondary has been built. It therefore owns land in Section D also.
In the year 2001, a group of persons, most of whom had been renting land from Mrs Waddle, as shown on the Cappell Plan, applied for titles in Section D. The Robert Roberts faction started a campaign of land sales and amassed finance for the legal opposition. They were from that faction that owned only 1/50th of Undivided.
After some time elapsed, the opposed persons reapplied but were not opposed so they were granted titles. Thus began a tortuous and twisted chain of events which persists until today. Myriads of claims, some successful some unsuccessful have been filed mostly with untruthful pleadings.
A number of the descendants of (e.g. Ms Joyce King descendants of Robert Roberts have pleaded to have ownership by descendancy over much more than they are entitled to while some of the descendants of Gideon Roberts who was instrumental in acquiring 20 shares of Undivided have not been very active in claiming ownership of any land in Undivided.
Some time ago, another group of occupants of Undivided filed for title but was opposed by Elaine Rahat Adams and a number of the Robert Roberts and Gideon Roberts descendants.Those persons occupied that portion of Undivided that was shown on the Cappell Plan as the property of Rahat Adams.
The Court ruled that the occupants should pay fifty percent (50%) to the Robert Roberts descendants and fifty percent (50%) to Elaine Rahat Adams. Perhaps the law of Undividedness is what prevailed.
In 2004, I was invited by a few persons to survey land and claim ownership of twenty eight acres. Of course, I refused. Those persons each used different legal bases for their claims. One pleading was correct but the others were not.
I am of the impression that the court has not been presented with the true facts on the ownership of Undivided or Section D, Friendship.The descendants of Robert Roberts maintain a stranglehold, carving out large acreages, selling, and gifting more than they really had owned. The story of Undivided Friendship is as unfriendly as you can get.
I have just been apprised of the fact that Noah Yashuran had been utilised for his attorneyship to enrich himself.I am not surprised that one of the descendants of Gideon Roberts could fall prey to anyone who possessed some degree of adventurism.
I had been retained for a short while by a group of the greater and lesser owners of Undivided but no one wanted to respect the necessity for fairplay and the rule of law.
I must conclude that Friendship is a quagmire, which has seen many violent and non violent conflicts, a scenario in which the brash, bold, forceful and adventurous, rule the day; and the unteachable and timid entitled continue to be dispossessed as the days go by.
I was aghast when I read the libellous slur that was levelled by Noah Yashuran against Isla Barry. Ms Barry to Mr Yashuran has been like a moth to a flame, she has been consumed. I suppose it is Mr Yashuran’s ability to convince the gullible.
I have just located a 1995 Land court award to the local Authority Organisation, now called the Caledonia/Good Success Neighbourhood Democratic Council of nineteen (19) parcels of land, and so the mystery deepens.
I think the land issues of Friendship require a separate Sub Committee of a Commission of Inquiry.
Marjorie McCaskey

---

---