Concerned Citizens of Ann’s Grove / Two Friends Exposed

Dec 02, 2018 Letters

Dear Editor,

Kindly allow me to respond to a letter from “Concerned Citizens of Ann’s Grove / Two Friends”, entitled “Using Land for purposes other than intended” that appeared in this newspaper last Tuesday, November 27, 2018.
From its very preamble, one may be led to believe that there is a death wave afflicting Ann’s Grove / Two Friends and there is need for mass burials. Thank God that is not the case. What in fact the writers intended was to instigate a village conflict via a ruthless and baseless emotional appeal. I qualified their endeavor as ruthless and baseless due to their astounding omission of one simple fact. That is, “Concerned Citizens of Ann’s Grove” have most conspicuously omitted from the public domain the fact that this land they have written about has been litigated over beginning in 1973 and a final judgement awarded in the highest court of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana to five petitioners in 2006. Further, their attitude of ignoring this High Court order is bolstered by their absurd conviction that our political leaders must also intervene and disregard this fully litigated High Court judgement.
The essence of the matter is this. In 1973, in the true spirit of independence from any state design, twelve (12) members of the community, the vast majority of whom were direct descendants of the formerly enslaved of Ann’s Grove / Two Friends, petitioned the court under the legal process of “First Registration”. Sadly, Mr. Burnham did not see this action by these 12 members as politically expedient. However, being an astute Lawyer himself, the ‘kabaka’ knew the die was cast and he knew legally that move by the twelve members was as good as final unless he got them all to withdraw. A local battle started. Mr. Fraser (Saxa) confronted the ‘Kabaka’ demanding evidence of state ownership of this land only to be jailed under trumped up charges of violating “price control” measures in commerce. Later, members who had planted rice in the fields of the land were summoned to “Court at Belfield” and a signature demanded on certain documents in order to reap their rice, but they still had their rice field destroyed and handed over to Mr. Cecil Ram after signing. Nevertheless, these pressures were only effective in getting seven members to leave the group of 12. After Burnham’s death in 1985, the remaining five resumed the matter and were finally successful in getting judgement in 2006.
Now, I must ask, has this so called “Co-op” informed its members of this judgement? I doubt it for one critical reason. That being, Mr. Sertimer when he was alive and his cronies who are still alive would never want to answer to the people who have built houses that occupy 85% of this land how to get a “Transport”. Further, was it not greed and exploitation when Mr. Sertimer and his cronies “sold” (trespassed legally) and defrauded many villages by accepting their hard- earned monies then only to toss it back when the higher paying “Yankees” came to deal?
This very piece of land along with another piece on the public road represents a mere 15 percent of the 65 acres total and by all means must be and will be divided among the legal owners and their key supporters. In fact, had it not been protected rigorously since 2012, would most certainly have been “sold” by Mr. Sertimer and his cronies. Now they are telling of their “noble cause” of a burial ground. I end by saying, should the heirs of the owners and their key supporters not fully exercise their rights then the last thing they have to worry about is a burial ground for their ancestors who fought so hard for over 40 years to directly register this land and not bow to any state design would not want them close by.

Quincy Andrews.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News