Former AG maintains Land CoI another waste of tax payers’ dollars

– willleave trail of controversies, strife and animosities

Although the Opposition has repeatedly urged Government against establishing a Land Commission of Inquiry (CoI), this process has commenced and has begun to create quite a stir in the public, with several debates about whether there was a need for such a CoI, and how complex these matters could get.

Former Attorney General (AG) and Legal Affairs Minister, Anil Nandlall, recalled that, during a debate in the National Assembly, he had expressed his objection to such a mechanism. He maintains that the facility of the CoI is absolutely abused by the President, and is a total waste of tax payers’ money.
“It continues to be misused to address issues that state/Government agencies and public officers are paid millions of dollars to focus on,” he asserted, noting that there is no doubt that those who are part of the CoI team are benefiting tremendously based on the huge salaries they are receiving.

Nandlall said that while he is not opposed to a mechanism established to address the claims relating to ‘ancestral lands’, once properly defined, he believes that a CoI is not the fittest mechanism. “Moreover, to merge ancestral land issues with issues relating to Amerindian lands is conceptually wrong and hopelessly inconvenient,” he noted, while explaining that the two issues are not common.
Further, the former minister is still of the opinion that such a CoI would be divisive and would aggravate tensions among different segments of the local populace. He believes that excluding other ethnic groups is tantamount to ethnic discrimination, which is outlawed by the Constitution.
Nandall used a recent example to point at the controversies and divisions that have already begun to emerge. He spoke about a matter pertaining to a village on the West Coast of Berbice, where the testimony of one individual has precipitated quite a reaction.
The individual said his ancestors purchased a village on the West Coast of Berbice and acquired transport. Over 100 families are now claiming to have been in occupation of lands in that village, by themselves and through their ancestors, for over a century.
“I met with over 100 of these persons last Tuesday in the village. They were very agitated and genuinely concerned about the future of their properties. They informed me that persons have been going around in the village informing them that they will soon have to pay rent for the lands which they occupy,” Nandlall disclosed.
The former Attorney General said some of these residents showed him transports which they have acquired over the years: some through inheritance, some through title by prescription, and some by sale. He said that, having put together the evidence, those persons have been occupying these lands for decades.
In the circumstances, Nandlall said, in the absence of fraud, it is legally impossible to successfully challenge their legal title to these lands — whether these titles are formal paper titles, or possessory titles acquired through the nature, quality and longevity of their occupation.
“No fraud is apparent in these circumstances,” he asserted, while explaining that a transport is a formal title to land issued under the Deeds Registry Act.
There are a variety of ways by which a person can lawfully lose their legal title (transport) to land. A transported owner can lose his title voluntarily or involuntarily. He can lose his title voluntarily by selling or gifting, or by bequeathing to another by will the land to which the transport relates, or a part thereof.
CoIs no legal substitute
In the circumstances, Nandlall said, the assertion that one may have held a transport in respect of a piece of land a century and a half ago is merely of historical and academic importance, and really lacks any true practical value. He said that, over the passage of time, there are many ways through which that person could, or may, have lost legal title to that land.
“I mean no disrespect when I assert that the current CoI has neither the technical competence nor the legal authority or jurisdiction to efficaciously and conclusively address these complex legal issues. What the CoI will end up doing is raise a series of hornets’ nests which it cannot quell; create expectations which it cannot satisfy; raise legal issues which it cannot conclusively determine; and excite tensions among people that it cannot subside,” he opined.
Nandlall said that, in a constitutional construct like Guyana’s, legal disputes can be resolved only in and by a court which has the competent jurisdiction to do so; one hundred CoIs can never be a legal substitute.
“It will be observed that this Commission is only in its early stages. It has not touched the Amerindian issues as yet. Based on what I have read in the press so far, it can resolve none of the legal issues raised before it. Its recommendations to the President (David Granger) will be of no different effect. As all-powerful as some may feel the Executive President is, one power which he does not possess is the power to resolve legal disputes in respect of lands.”
Nandlall is of the opinion that, in the end, the country would have another CoI that would’ve devoured millions of taxpayers’ dollars to no avail; but, in its wake, would leave a trail of controversies, strife, animosities and unresolved legal issues.