Court of Appeal Stay Snatches ‘Heart’ from Mining Land Dispute Victory

Apr 16, 2026 News

---

… Lawyers Cry Foul Over ‘Secret Hearing’

(Kaieteur News) – The mining land dispute involving the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC), Wallace Daniels and the Alphonsos has been thrown into legal limbo following a “fascinating” behind-the-scenes decision by the Court of Appeal to stay a ruling that had previously favoured miner Wallace Daniels.

Attorneys representing Daniels’ interest expressed shock and “jaw-dropping” disbelief on Wednesday, revealing they were entirely excluded from the appellate proceedings that effectively froze their client’s legal rights.

The “Frozen” Decision

The controversy centers on a decision by Magistrate Alan Wilson, who had previously ruled in favour of Wallace Daniels regarding a boundary dispute. That ruling mandated the GGMC to formally register mining areas under Daniels’ name, granting him the right to recover profits and defend against trespassers.

However, on March 20, Justice of Appeal Joanne Barlow reportedly ordered a temporary stay of Magistrate Wilson’s decision.

“The Court of Appeal has essentially removed the heart of the patient temporarily,” said attorney Eusi Anderson, describing the impact of the stay. “I have a regard to the fact that those rights cannot be properly defended right now because they have been put in a corner to freeze for a little bit.”

Claims of “Strategic” Exclusion

The legal team’s primary grievance is not just the stay itself, but the manner in which it was obtained. According to attorneys Anderson and Ronald Daniels, the hearing took place without their knowledge or participation.

“We were not notified that an application was made to begin with,” Ronald Daniels stated. “We were not a party to those proceedings… we were collectively taken aback by that course of action.” Anderson suggested that the omission of Wallace Daniels as a respondent in the appeal, despite him being the party most adversely affected, appeared to be a tactical move.

“In my view, it’s not that we were not aware… we were never, in any view, strategically added as a party,” Anderson said. “And that would blind us completely from being aware and participating in, and as Ronald said, vigorously resisting an application to stay.” 

“Extraordinary Players” and “Bullies”

The proceedings have been characterized by the legal team as “extraordinary,” with Anderson noting the unusual nature of a Court of Appeal order being issued without the knowledge of the primary stakeholders.

Former Minister and mining advocate Simona Broomes joined the fray, framing the legal battle as a long-standing struggle against powerful interests. “This is not a matter of it being straight and straightforward. This is a whole bullies-on by itself,” Broomes remarked, alleging that the “Alfonsos” (the opposing interest) have repeatedly challenged Daniels despite prior rulings affirming his legal rights. She claimed that license for Daniels had been prepared by the GGMC in the past, only for instructions to be issued at the last minute to withhold them.

The legal team is now moving to bridge, the information gap. Anderson has instructed his office to contact the Court of Appeal to obtain a full copy of the proceedings and the filed documents to determine who appeared in defense of the application and the legal basis for Justice Barlow’s order.

“We don’t know if it’s permanent because there has not been a time for us to peruse,” Anderson concluded. “These are extraordinary times and these are extraordinary things happening.”

Amid claims by Marvis Halliman, Wallace Daniels’ nephew, power of attorney and medium-scale miner, who has been vocal about being victimised over a plot of land located next to a prominent gold magnate at Toroparu Backdam, Region Seven (Cuyuni-Mazaruni), Minister of Natural Resources, Vickram Bharrat has come out claiming that the miner has been conducting an illegal operation as the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) never issued the operation a mining permit.

The mining camp was flattened by GGMC mines officers and members of the Guyana Police Force (GPF), who had initially arrested Halliman and his security guards over a firearm claiming that it was unlicensed, but hours later released them after properly reviewing the documentation that was provided to them earlier in the day to prove that the firearm was licence.

The mining property at the center of the saga is purportedly owned by Wallace Daniels, the uncle of Marvis Halliman, who has power of attorney. The issue dates back to December 2012, when Daniels discovered a strip of unclaimed land located near property owned by the Alphonso family, well-known players in the local gold industry. After confirming the land was available, Daniels applied to the GGMC and was granted the claim with no legal challenges or objections at the time. However, the mining property became the center of legal battles and threats.

In a letter dated October 16, 2025, GGMC served Halliman a removal order, accusing him or persons acting under his direction of disrupting the peace in contravention of the Mining Act.  While the camp site was being destroyed Halliman tearfully expressed his frustration with the way small-scale miners are treated in the mining industry. He also disclosed that he attended a meeting with GGMC and was offered other alternative mining areas if he gives up the plot of mining land in the Toroparu Backdam. However, he said he refuses to be bullied off of a mining property that he is legally occupying.

When contacted to respond to Halliman’s claims that GGMC’s handling of the matter has been unfair to him, Minister Bharrat said, “Halliman is not a property holder nor a power of attorney. He nor his uncle Daniels are in receipt of a mining permit from GGMC for the said property. Halliman has been collecting money from miners to work on the said land illegally.”

It should be noted that Halliman himself had acknowledged that GGMC has never issued the mining permit for the operation even after the ruling of a tribunal review and high court rulings. The miner had stated that despite when his uncle applying for the land there was no objection or challenges and despite GGMC being ordered to issue the permits, the state agency never did.

GGMC and Court rulings

According to GGMC documents seen by this publication, after there were no legal challenges or objections to Daniels’ application for the land, GGMC Commissioner Newell Dennison invited Daniels to a meeting, which was attended by Andron Alphonso and his lawyers. The meeting was an attempt to mediate a compromise after Alphonso complained, he would have applied had he known the land was available. However, that mediation failed. In February 2016, Andron Alphonso objected to Daniels being granted Prospecting Permits Medium Scale (PPMS), arguing that his 2009 river claims included the 300 feet inland.

According to the document, Alphonso owns river claims filed for in 2009, covering 34 claims along the Puruni River, one mile upstream and 300-feet inland on both sides. Daniels’ application, however, was for the 300-feet north and south of the river, adjacent to the Alphonso property. A tribunal chaired by Magistrate Allan Wilson heard the matter and in May 2024, ruled in Daniels’ favour. The document states that the magistrate ruled that Daniels’ actions were neither injurious to Alphonso nor illegal.

Magistrate Wilson held that under Guyana’s mining regulations, river claims cannot by law include 300-feet inland from the low-water mark, meaning Alphonso’s claims did not cover the disputed strip. On May 3, 2023, Minister Bharrat had issued a retroactive order closing the disputed area from December 6, 2012, which is the day before Daniels made his application to GGMC.

Notably the magistrate ruled to strike out the minister’s order. In 2024, GGMC moved to the high court seeking a judicial review of the tribunal’s decision. Some of the respondents in the case sought a dismissal through their lawyers. The respondents argued that the case was improperly filed and lacked grounds. The court dismissed GGMC’s case, ruling that when Daniels applied in 2012 there were no objections, and that Alphonso only showed interest in the land after the application was filed. It was noted too that even after showing interest in the land, Alphonso never made a formal application for the same plot of land.

In December 2024, GGMC again moved to the high court this time seeking to quash Magistrate Wilson’s decision, arguing the permits granted overlapped with land already reserved by the 2023 ministerial order. GGMC contended that the order approved prospecting permits for Daniels in an area that had already been reserved and closed to mining. The commission argued too that the tribunal decision was unlawful, unreasonable, unfair, and an abuse of power. GGMC asked the court to quash this decision unless Magistrate Wilson can show cause. However, the court dismissed that challenge as well.

Halliman had told this publication that despite GGMC’s repeated failed legal challenges, the commission has still not issued the permits.

---

• Alphonsos, Court of Appeal, GGMC, Marvis Halliman, Mining Land Dispute

---