By Svetlana Marshall

The Government and Opposition clashed in a heated debate in the National Assembly today over the Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes (Amendment) Bill, with the main opposition – A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) demanding that the Bill be sent to a Special Select Committee. 

The Bill, which has sparked concerns among Guyanese, is being piloted through the National Assembly by the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall. 

The Attorney General, in defense of the Bill, explained that it is not new and has existed since 1914 when laws were instituted in then British Guiana for the State to compulsorily acquire lands for public good. He said those laws were adopted when Guyana became an independent nation in 1966. 

The Attorney General said the Amendments to the Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes Act are merely intended to facilitate “prompt” and “adequate” compensation for private lands compulsorily acquired by the State for public purposes, and are in keeping with provisions within the Constitution.

“The power to acquire is already there. What we are adding to it now, is that when you acquire and you are required to pay, you must pay promptly and you must pay, not mere compensation but adequate compensation as determined by the Act. And there are three sections that tell you how to compute the compensation,” the Attorney General told the House. 

However, he said given a number of concerns raised, he together with the Minister of Governance and Parliamentary Affairs, Gail Teixeira met with a team of Opposition Members of Parliament led by the Opposition Chief Whip, Christopher Jones, on Tuesday met and agreed to Amend Clause 3 of the Bill, which seeks to amend Section 24 of the Principal Act. 

Clause 3 was crafted to establish a legal framework for a Minister to make an advance cash payment to an interested and authorized person, not exceeding 80% of the purchase price. However, during Tuesday’s meeting it was agreed that the advance cash payment must be lodged at the Court. 

“What was suggested is that the minister retains the power to pay the 80% but it was suggested that the minister must not pay it directly to the owner or to the person who presents himself as the authorized or interested person, the minister must lodge it with the registrar of the court and the person entitled must then go to the court, and show to the court that he or she is the duly qualified person to receive the money and get the payment,” the Attorney General explained. 

Clause 3 was therefore amended to reflect the agreed position. Additionally, if the land is the subject of a mortgage or any other similar registered encumbrance, the Minister would be required to pay off the mortgage. 

But Opposition Member of Parliament, Ganesh Mahipaul said notwithstanding Tuesday’s meeting, the Opposition’s position remains the same that the Bill should be sent to a Special Select Committee for a more holistic and comprehensive examination of both the Bill, and the Principal Act, which has become outdated. 

Describing the Bill as a “reactionary Bill,” MP Mahipaul told the House that the Government rushed to amend the Act in response to the issues that have arisen since the compulsorily acquisition of lands to accommodate the construction of the new bridge across the Demerara River. 

A number of propriety owners have taken the Government to Court.  

“As the country embarks on a path of unprecedented economic growth, largely driven by the wealth generated from the oil sector, we are poised to engage in significant public infrastructure projects that will require land acquisition for public purposes. Given these developments, it is crucial that our legal framework be updated to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing nation,” MP Mahipaul told the House.

Minister of Public Works, Juan Edghill in lending his support to the legislation told the House that in a number of instances, settlements were reached to the satisfaction of both sides once lands had to be compulsorily acquired by the State. 

“Every person who lives in an area where they had to be displaced, through the Central Housing and Planning Authority we engaged them to ensure persons get residential land and, in some cases, residential-commercial and I think in one case where there were businesses, a commercial land,” the Public Works Minister explained. 

In other instances where there were disputes, he said the Court was asked to intervened to facilitate adequate compensation. 

But Opposition Member of Parliament, Amanza Walton-Desir said there has been an abuse of the Land Acquisition Law by the current Administration, citing the case of the Cane View, Mocha Arcadia residents. 

“You know what is galling about it, we were told, and this is why I smiled when the Honorable Attorney General comes here to say the people of Guyana must trust them. Oh, their homes are in the path of the road, their homes are in the path of the road, the road is completed now, and we see very clearly that the people were never in the path of the road but we must trust them,” MP Walton Desir said. 

The debate is ongoing in the National Assembly this evening.

Related posts:

IDPADA-G and GTUC concerned about Government’s Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes Amendment Bill Surujbally seeks $100M from Government over acquisition of his land for gas to energy project; Govt. says his demand is unreasonable Constitutional Reform Bill tabled in National Assembly; AG hopes for full Opposition and public participation in process Opposition’s Marijuana Bill extinguished; Government’s Marijuana Bill rolls into Special Committee