Dear Editor,

The MMA/ADA’S repossession and reallocation of lands of No 40 Co-op Society Ltd, Regd No 1513 is an act of gross injustice, inconsistencies and contradictions. The MMA’S divisive actions have resulted in serious social disaffection in our community as its regularization programme takes on a different meaning from that carried out in other communities across the country. For the record, according to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, regularization (derived from regularize means to make something (such as a situation) regular, legal or officially accepted.

In June 2008, Minister of Agriculture Mr Robert Persaud told rice farmers at a meeting at Bush Lot Secondary School that those whose names appeared in the press for outstanding debts to MMA “are allowed to pay 30% of the amount owing and enter into a phased payment plan.” He further stated that any farmer who was planting the land himself and could not pay in full would not face repossession. (‘Delinquent MMA farmers getting reprieve’ www.stabroeknews.com)

In January 2010, Chairman of MMA/ADA Mr Rudolph Gajraj informed that repossession and reallocation were a last resort. “The whole thing about the Scheme is maintenance. We want people to pay for the maintenance of the secondary D&I system, so that we do not have to resort to repossession and reallocation of state lands,” he reiterated. (‘MMA/ADA demanding payment, promising better service’ guyanachronicle.com)

In June 2014, Mr Gajraj at a meeting in MMA boardroom told members of the No 40 Co-op and residents of No 40 Village that payment of outstanding D&I charges could not guarantee they would retain the lands they occupy, and that the repossession and reallocation of lands that the co-op ‘controlled’ was a done deal. He further emphasized that the lands are state lands and that no court in Guyana can change what they are doing. The outstanding debts of No 40 Co-op as at June 30, 2014 stood at $4,241,458. The Co-op paid $3,353,000 or 79% of the debt. The last payment was made on September 17, 2014.

On October 31, 2014, despite 50% of members of the No 40 Co-op paying 100% of their outstanding debts and all members paying an average of 79% of their outstanding debts to the MMA as at June 30, 2014, MMA/ADA repossessed and reallocated the lands the No 40 Co-op has been occupying since January 17, 1972. And for good measure, the MMA totally dispossessed 50% of the members of the Co-op and partially dispossessed the rest to varying degrees. The chairman and secretary of the Co-op had special treatment, with the former being dispossessed of 60% of his land and the latter 100%. They had taken legal initiatives to avert the MMA’s action. The foregoing is a precursor of injustice, inconsistencies and contradictions.

The occupancy of state lands under the control of the No 40 Co-op has not been a problem for many years. Within the co-op membership we have six tractors, one combine harvester and one truck. In the spirit of co-operativism , those who do not have machinery are assisted by those who have in a mutual arrangement. We enjoy an occupancy rate of 100%. In our 43 year history, we have never been accused of impropriety of any sort by any individual or institution, yet our lands have been seized by the MMA.

No 40 Village has approximately six hundred and fourteen acres of state land. There are three hundred and sixty-seven acres north of the main canal occupied by 12 persons. Each person has approximately 30.5 acres. The No 40 Co-op is south of the main canal with two hundred and forty-seven acres of land occupied by 10 persons. Each member has approximately 24.7 acres. We are not at a more advantageous position than others occupying state lands in the village, yet a functioning co-op is been demolished while other state lands in the village remain untouched. Is this justice?

And what is more, persons who are in a far better economic position than those in the co-op have been given land in the co-op. For example, one family that is traditionally in livestock, and has more than one hundred acres of state lands for pasture on the right bank of the Abary River has been given 60% of the plot occupied by one member of the coop. In another instance, the MMA took 50% of a needy member’s land. This member has six children, five of whom are attending school and one at college. This is so despite passionate pleas by his wife to the highest authorities.

What MMA has done to No 40 Co-op contradicts the assurance given by Minister of Labour Dr Nanda Gopaul who as it relates to co-ops said, “Nobody will be disenfranchised of their land as the Ministry will be moving to ensure that care is taken and those who are occupying lands will be given individual leases instead to address the issue” (‘Cooperatives, friendly societies being investigated,’ Guyana Times, Dec 18, 2013).

A simple analogy will put MMA’s action into perspective. It’s like GPL warning customers to pay up to avoid disconnection. Then having paid up, GPL disconnects anyhow. And not only disconnects, but removes power lines and the meter saying you will never be reconnected since the current belongs to them. This is the lawlessness that is going on in the Scheme.

MMA published a series of notices in the national newspapers warning farmers to pay up to avoid repossession and reallocation. Now having paid up, MMA still seized our lands and informed us that the lands are state lands. This is blatant disregard for their own public pronouncements.

At our meetings with MMA officials on the regularization of state lands “previously” controlled by the No 40 Co-op, the MMA Chairman Mr Gajraj was particularly disdainful of co-operatives. He said that he was not dealing with co-ops but with state lands. We were therefore utterly amazed when Mr Gajraj and the Attorney-General announced at the MMA Open Day that they had advised the people of Rampur and Shieldstown Villages to form themselves into a co-op society. The AG added, “We are now in the process of making available to them over 1,200 acres of land for their communal use” (‘AG leading land regularisation effort in Region 5,’ Guyana Chronicle).

Land regularization in Guyana has been one in which occupants of state lands are given title to those lands after due process. This holds true for those who are squatting on lands for house lots or for agricultural purposes. In the case of Cotton Tree, West Coast Berbice, the Land Registry Act was applied. If we are treating communities on the basis of justice and equality, then why was this Act not applied to No 40 Village? Mr Ralph Ramkarran’s ‘Land titling: correcting historical problems’ is instructive (August 31, 2013). MMA’S repossession, dispossession and reallocation of state lands from those occupying them is giving new meaning to the word regularization.

There is enough land in Guyana for all Guyanese, and even foreigners. Right now the authorities are giving millions of acres to foreigners for investment. Why is the MMA setting villagers against each other over a small plot of land?

Yours faithfully,
Patrick Hamilton

Chairman
Barbara Franklin
Secretary

William Hemerding
Treasurer

Ryan Hamilton
Kevin Wade
Rawle Moore
Ranford Hamilton
Committee members

We are sending a copy of this letter to Mr Rudoph Gajraj, Chairman of the MMA/ADA Scheme for any comment he might wish to make