Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes Act amended to guarantee State’s “prompt”, “adequate” compensation, vacant possession; Opposition, gov’t differ on constitutionality of changes

Last Updated on Wednesday, 18 December 2024, 23:38 by Writer

Guyana’s National Assembly Wednesday night approved an amendment to the Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes Act to allow for the State to immediately possess privately-owned lands after the issuance of the order and payment of 80 percent of the compensation.

Attorney General, Anil Nandlall said the owners enjoy a “right of law” to be compensated at market value. He told the House that the original law was amended to provide for “prompt” payment of the purchase price or for any “adequate” compensation as determined by the Act. ” If the State owns the land, by what logic should the State not be entitled to vacant possession,” he told the House.

After a meeting between government representatives—Mr Nandlall and Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance—and those from the opposition—Shadow Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Attorney-at-Law Roysdale Forde, Ganesh Mahipaul, Christopher Jones, Vincent Henry, Annette Ferguson and Sherod Duncan—Mr Nandlall told the House that government agreed to amend the law to provide for the payment of 80 percent of the value of the land in cash instead of a bond as currently provided by the law.

The two sides also agreed for the money to be paid through the Registrar, instead of the Minister, to ensure that the lawful owner receives the payment should there be a property dispute.

Alliance For Change (AFC) Leader Khemraj Ramjattan expressed disquiet at the fact that the “devious method” in the amendment that provides for the State’s right to vacation possession of the land without prejudice even before compensation is made. “You’re adding something in the law that is not in the Constitution,” he said, arguing that the amendment would be inconsistent with Guyana’s Constitution. He cautioned that the matter could end up in court.

Similarly, Mr Roysdale Forde said one of the amendments is “inherently” inconsistent with Guyana’s Constitution and the High Court because it allows for the owner to surrender rights to the property based on an advance payment of 80 percent that would not constitute full and adequate compensation. He said government’s amendments to the Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes Act opened the door to court action against the government.

In wrapping up the debate, Attorney General Nandlall said there was no conflict between the law and the Constitution and that he was ready to face Mr Forde and Mr Ramjattan in court. Mr Nandlall said Guyana’s Constitution which provides for the acquisition of property requires prompt payment of adequate compensation. “There is no requirement here that the State is not entitled to vacant possession,” he said, adding that “we can test” the law in court.

While Mr Mahipaul, at Tuesday’s meeting, asked for a Tribunal to be established to deal specifically with compensation, the two sides eventually reached a compromise that the law would be changed to provide for disputes to be addressed by the High Court or through the Arbitration Act.

In contributing to the parliamentary debate, Mr Mahipaul said the opposition’s preference was for the proposed amendments to be taken to a Special Select Committee to address the Act in its entirety so that “we will be able to have a modernised” law to deal with a modern economy.

He said it was only after the government refused to send the amendments to the Committee that the opposition opted to negotiate the now agreed to changes.

“This bill is a reactionary bill that has suddenly attracted government’s attention because of what is unfolding with the new Demerara harbour bridge,” in reference to a number of disputes over the amount of compensation to property owners who are in the way of the new east-west corridor being built across the Demerara River.

Mr Mahipaul said the opposition, with the involvement of Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton, also secured the amendment to ensure specifically that 80 percent of the money be paid.

Touching on the importance of Tribunal, he said property owners, who could not afford legal fees, could use that mechanism. At the same time, he said the law should provide for recourse to the court if there is no satisfactory resolution.

Public Works Minister Juan Edghill, in dismissing the call by the main opposition A Partnership for National Unity+Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) for the amendments to be taken to a Select Committee, challenged the coalition to table their amendments for consideration.

Ms Ferguson, the Shadow Minister of Housing, said the new Peter’s Hall, East Bank Demerara, site for that bridge was never the intended location under the APNU+AFC administration. She said a feasibility study under the David Granger-led administration had found Houston to be a better spot where only one property would have been affected. “What they (the current government) failed to do was a proper feasibility study to ascertain how many property owners would have been affected,” she said.

Rather than being concerned about “power over the welfare” of Guyanese, opposition parliamentarian Amanza Walton-Desir said issues such as the undervaluation of properties owned by minorities, historical under-investment in those areas and the need for equitable valuations including cultural and historical values instead of mere market value should be considered. She also said the legacies of freed slaves must be preserved and that there should be proper consultations, while ensuring inclusion and fairness to all race groups and communities.

But governing PPP lawmaker, Attorney-at-Law, Sanjeev Datadin slammed Ms Walton-Desir for “pontificating” without reading that the principal Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes Act addresses the bases for compensation such as damage sustained, injury to other property or earnings and reasonable expenses related to a change of residence. “You want a mechanism, you have a mechanism, go and look for it,” he said.

APNU+AFC parliamentarian, Nima Flue-Bess said compensation should include psycho-social support, and cultural and historical connections to the land. Questioning why the new Demerara Harbour Bridge was not taken to Houston, she said the opposition was not against development but wanted equity fairness. “We have to do better when it comes to displacement versus development,” she said.