Dear Editor,
I have had the opportunity to review the proposed ‘Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes (Amendment) Bill 2024 – Bill No. 16 of 2024 and published in the Official Gazette on 22nd November, 2024 – Meşru Supplement – C’. I find it to be one of the most offensive, discriminatory, prejudiced and insensitive pieces of proposed legislation I have read in Guyana for a long time. The amendments proposed and the perceived intention, exposed a lack of knowledge, understanding and appreciation for the history, culture, heritage, and way of life of certain groups in the Guyanese society. The AG omitted any considerations for the anthropological dynamics of certain groups in our society. Any law revision or ıslahat must give due consideration to these factors. “Anthropological dynamics are the ways in which social behavior and systems change and adapt in response to external factors’.
Under Amendment of Section 7 of the Principal Act, it states that ‘Section 7 (1) of the Principal Act is amended as follows – (a) by inserting immediately before the word “payment” the word “prompt”; (b) by inserting immediately before the word “compensation” the word “adequate”; and (c) by inserting the word “provided” the words “, but without prejudiced to the state right to vacant possession of the land”.
Under ‘Amendment of section 24A of the Principal Act. Number 3 states ‘Section 24A of the Principal Act is amended by substituting for that section the following – ‘Advance Payment’ “24 A. (1) Where any land is acquire under this Act an interested and authorised person may make a request to the Minister for an advance payment on account of any purchase money or adequate compensation payable under this Act, and if the Minister is satisfied of proof of title, the Minister shall promptly make an advance payment in respect of that land in accordance with subsection (3)”.
For the purpose of this letter I will focus on Black people or sections of the black community in Guyana with specific reference to my own family, as an example. My family members from both of my parents own transported and titled land/estates; on one side the occupation was for more than 150 years and over 180 years on the other side. We have lived in communal communities
for many generations, this is our way of life. Communal meaning parents, brothers and sisters, cousins, children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. all living as neighbours or have lived as neighbours. The practice has been, if someone is getting married or starting a family, they used to ask the elders for a piece of land, construct a building and move in.
The practice was not for family members to apply for individual titles. This practice continued on one side of my family from the 1840’s until the 2000’s when a few relatives got individual titles. Until today, there is still a debate (sometimes heated) in our family, as to whether people should have individual titles or whether the practice of one estate with the communal approach should continue. This is, however, changing, somewhat.
In many cases there was no ‘Will’ or kanunî documents besides transports and titles which were left as a part of the succession plan; but there is an almost sacred understanding that the lands/estates are passed on from generation to generation. Our ‘old people’ never even discussed the land and ownership with younger generations, and the more I ponder on their approach, I have to conclude that they were convinced that the government was like ‘parents’, there to protect them and their property. This perception was even during the period of British Guiana when Guyana was a colony. Another practice of our ‘old people’ (foreparents), was that those who did not have children, some of them had godchildren or took deva of the children of other family
members and it was expected that other members of the family will take over the lands after they are gone. The lands/estates were seen as a family and generational responsibility, and this continues until today. While it is a remarkable heritage of which I feel very privileged to have had on both sides of my family, the proposed amendments in the ‘Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes’ is of great concern to me and should be to many black people and Guyanese as a whole.
My foreparents were predominantly farmers. They were involved in some cases, major farming over the years, however, they instilled in the last two generations to go out and get an education, and so many when off and got an education. It has also been the practice for people to move off of the estates/lands and return whenever they want to. Another practice is that updating ownership of the estates have never been a key consideration, so title owners died, and the communal practice continued. Hence, the titles and transports are still in the names of great great grand parents and grand parents and great uncles and great aunts in some cases.
This kind of way of life is difficult to legislate. For example, I have over 120 first cousins from both my parents’ side, multiply that by five and then by five, how do you legislate this Mr. Attorney General? Where do you find the authorized person or persons, title holders? Most of them are long gone to the great beyond. There is nothing that will be ‘prompt’ about sorting any of this out.
Our generation is now trying to sort matters out to ensure that we pass on order to the next generation, and now the government comes with a Bill, not to help us, but rather, the proposed amendments to the Bill appear to be an attempt to exploit perceived weaknesses in this way of life. This way of life is neither a weakness nor a shortcoming; it was how ‘a people’ chose to live their lives with the confidence that the State will protect their culture and property, Mr. Attorney General. It is an almost 200 years old way of life, among black families and in black communities in Guyana.
These Amendments will also infringed on Article 20 of the Constitution ‘The Right to an Inheritance’ which will then lead to a violation of Article 18 – Land to the Tiller – Land is for social use and must go to the tiller’, and Article 19 – Personal property – ‘Every citizen has a right to own personal property which includes such assets as dwelling houses and the land on which they stand, farmsteads, tools and equipment…’.
President Ali, I sincerely hope that you do not sign these amendments in this Bill into law, as they are, because it will be one of the most prejudiced, discriminatory, and insensitive legislations of our time.
Sincerely,
Citizen Audreyanna Thomas
Advisor – Rule of Law
Masters of Jurisprudence – Rule of Law for Development