People’s National Congress Reform member Debra Backer
Legal Affairs Minister Charles Ramson Snr.Legal Affairs Minister Charles Ramson Snr.
The National Assembly has amended the Title to Land (Prescription and Limitation) Bill, which prevents squatters from owing state lands through prescriptive rights. This legislation, however, did not get the support of the combined opposition.
The government said the amendment is to avoid “land grabbing”, given the increase in squatting on state lands. But the opposition refused to support the piece of legislation, instead labelling it unfair, and even unconstitutional in one instance.
Standing in the name of Legal Affairs Minister Charles Ramson Snr., the amended clause stated that “State land; government land; land wholly owned by state entities, including companies and corporations, or in which the controlling interest is vested in the state; and lands identified by law, or on a plan drawn and approved in accordance with any law, set aside for reserves, cannot be acquired by prescription through adverse possession.”
The principal act allowed citizens occupying state lands for 30 years and over to apply for a title and become owners of same.
People’s National Congress Reform member Debra Backer stated that her party would not support the bill in its present form. “We urge that this bill be sent to a select committee so that we could consult with Guyanese,” she added. According to her, this is necessary since the public are the ones who would be affected.
Backer, also an attorney-at-law, labelled the piece of legislation “oppressive and discriminatory”, and she believes that it “increases the already weighted power government now enjoys.”
She said that having consulted with stakeholders, Opposition Leader Robert Corbin wrote Prime Minister Samuel Hinds and the legal affairs minister asking that the bill be deferred. The PNCR was hoping that this would have allowed the party to facilitate wider consultations on the matter.
But the attorney general has said that the arguments put forward by the opposition leader in a fax he had received did not provide sufficient reason to influence the decision to take the bill to the house. “I believe that reasonable requests should be given due recognition,” he added.
Supporting the arguments of her colleague Debra Backer, Clarissa Rheil said the PNCR would be less hesitant to support the bill had it been specific to squatting on government reserves alone. “It seems patently unfair that the state is … now coming to the Assembly to pass an act to take away a right that was given by our colonial masters,” Rheil, also a lawyer, added. “It may appear like a simple piece of paper, but it has far-reaching consequences.” Both Rheil and Backer were interested in a compensation mechanism for persons who would have to move from state lands.
Meanwhile, the Alliance For Change (AFC) party has also refused to support the bill. In fact, that party’s presidential candidate, Khemraj Ramjattan, said he does not see the relevance of the legislation if the law already makes it illegal to squat on government reserves. He thinks it will only discourage Guyanese who would have an interest in developing plots of unused state lands.
Mevertheless, Legal Affairs Minister Ramson boasted that any bill he supports would never impinge on the constitution, putting to rest claims that the bill in question was “unconstitutional”.
