Farnum Ground is not owned by the City Council

Dear Editor,
Farnum Playfield in Subryanville, Georgetown, is an open green space designated as community ground. It is not the private property of the Mayor and City Councillors (M&CC) to be disposed of, rented, or occupied for private advantage. It is held in trust to be preserved for recreation and community use and is bound by covenants that prohibit business use.
The public trust principle is enshrined in the Constitution of Guyana. The Municipal and District Councils Act gives authority to the Council to maintain recreational open spaces for the use and enjoyment of the public. This power is not intended to be misused or converted for private gain or to refuse to disclose and produce information.
M&CC and CHPA, under the Town and Country Planning Act, failed in their duties to prevent the erection of the large two-storey prefabricated structures on the community ground. Now M&CC proposes an agreement. This is intended to retrospectively legitimise the structures built illegally, permit the operation of multiple privately owned schools, give a licence to occupy, privatise community ground for profit, and take away public rights, all without consultation.
In effect, M&CC wishes to reward a private individual for building without permission, without proof of ownership, and without a certificate of registration for Mae’s Schools. CHPA and government agencies have elected to remain silent despite being notified. This is an egregious breach of public trust and a violation of M&CC’s fiduciary obligations, which require them to act in the best interest of the public.
No payment, albeit nominal, can cure an illegal occupation or convert a public trust into a private tenancy. Financial arrangements will not mitigate the traffic chaos endured by residents, who for years maintained Farnum in the absence of M&CC upkeep. The traffic generated by the schools will lead to foreseeable potential dangers to residents and road users.
Initially, without receiving a written application, M&CC granted permission in secret to a private individual to use Farnum for one year for tents. Even before the permission ended, the developer purportedly applied for an extension and proceeded to build permanent-type structures despite objections from residents.
This demonstrates how “temporary” permissions easily become entrenched, changing the character of the ground and replacing green fields with steel, concrete, and sand, leading to the slow conversion of public trust property into private possession.
Notably, lawful alternatives existed, including the Mae’s Schools Extension at Farm, as advertised, temporary rental of private land, or placement in the breakaway Mae’s Schools established by the former Mae’s headmistress.
The very existence of alternatives removes any justification for violating the public trust of land.
It must not be forgotten that in 2017, the original Mae’s owner attempted to convert part of Farnum Ground, and residents intervened, leading M&CC and CHPA to halt the illegal attempt. However, the residents were left with the burden of restoring the ground.
The welfare of children, while important, is not a legal exemption for breaching laws, public trust, and safety regulations. Illegality cannot be justified or sanitised under the guise of compassion.
Protecting children includes ensuring they learn in a safe, lawfully sanctioned environment, not in unapproved and anarchic conditions, with electrical and safety risks. A true and valuable lesson in child welfare is teaching respect for the rule of law, public integrity, and environmental responsibility – not disregard for laws, justifying unlawful conduct, or the art of circumventing laws.
The public interest lies in upholding the laws, transparency, and accountability – the very principles that secure environmental protection and sustainable use for future generations. When regulatory and state authorities fail to enforce the laws, they erode public confidence and good governance, with direct consequences for the rule of law.
This conduct violates Guyana and international laws, which state that community lands must be managed in trust for all. The attempt to privilege private interests over collective rights is contrary to the Council’s by-laws, town planning, environmental, and other laws that are intended to prevent the degradation of public spaces and obstruct Guyana’s commitment to protecting open green spaces.

Yours sincerely,
Jamela Ali