Bring an end to this back and forth!

Jul 06, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – The public controversy surrounding the reported grant of a large tract of state land to President Irfaan Ali has generated more heat than light. Before accusations and counter-accusations continue to dominate the public discourse, it is important that Guyanese understand what the law actually says about the granting of state land leases.

The law on this matter is neither complicated nor ambiguous. It clearly identifies who has the authority to approve leases of state lands and leaves very little room for speculation.

The governing legislation is the State Lands Act, Chapter 62:01. Section 3(1) provides:

“Subject to this Act or the Forests Act, the President may— (a) make absolute or provisional grants of any state lands of Guyana; (b) grant leases of any state lands of Guyana for such terms, and subject to such conditions, as he thinks fit or as are provided by the regulations…”

Those words are significant because the power is vested expressly in the president. The act does not state that the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission grants leases, nor does it confer that authority on the commissioner of lands as the primary decision-maker.

The Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission performs an important administrative role. It receives applications, conducts inspections, processes files, prepares lease documents and manages state lands, but the statutory authority to grant leases originates with the president under the State Lands Act.

Some have argued that the president does not personally approve every lease. That is true, but only because the law allows for delegation or for the president’s signature to be affixed in a prescribed manner.

The State Grants (President’s Signature) Act, Chapter 62:04 permits the president’s signature to be affixed by stamp or facsimile rather than by hand. It also requires the document to be countersigned and certified by the appropriate official, thereby confirming that the lease was issued under presidential authority.

The issue of delegation is equally important. The president may delegate certain statutory powers relating to state lands, but only where such delegation is expressly made.

This became particularly relevant in recent years. In 2016, during the APNU+AFC administration, President David Granger delegated authority relating to the granting of leases, licences and permissions over state lands to the commissioner of lands.

That delegation, however, did not survive the change of government. Shortly after assuming office in August 2020, the PPP/C administration rescinded the delegation, with the effect that the statutory authority to approve leases reverted to the president.

That fact is not in dispute. It was publicly announced by the Attorney General’s Chambers and reflected the government’s decision that these powers should once again be exercised directly by the president rather than by delegated authority.

This legal background is important because it helps to frame the present controversy. If the allegation now circulating in the public domain is that President Irfaan Ali obtained a substantial lease of state land before he became president, then simple logic and the law point to one obvious conclusion.

If the lease was granted before August 2020, it could not have been approved by President Ali because he was not president at the time. It would necessarily have been approved under the authority that existed then, either by the president of the day or by a person exercising delegated authority under the law then in force.

If the lease predates the PPP/C’s return to office in 2020, then it must have been approved under a previous administration. In those circumstances, it should not take much the former president or the relevant former officials to state publicly when such approval was in fact given.

The issue ought not to become a political football. It is fundamentally a question of fact.

There is a very simple way to resolve the matter. The president can publish the lease, or the relevant portions of it, showing the date on which it was granted, the date on which it was executed and the authority under which it was approved.

That single document would answer the central question. It would establish beyond argument whether the lease was granted before or after he became president and under whose legal authority it was issued.

No one should be condemned on the basis of rumour. Equally, no public official, regardless of office, should expect the public to accept assurances where documentary evidence can easily settle the issue.

The law has already provided the framework. The facts can now do the rest.

If the lease was granted before President Ali assumed the presidency, then the record will show precisely who approved it. If the lease was granted after he became president, then the law equally identifies the authority under which that approval would have been made.

There is therefore no need for endless political back and forth. The answer lies in the lease itself.

Until that document is made public, questions will persist. Once it is produced, the public will be able to judge the facts for themselves rather than relying on allegation, inference or partisan argument.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• corruption, Peeping Tom, President Irfaan Ali, public controversy

---