Works ministry wants to dissuade other transport holders in the vicinity of BM Soat from litigation for compensation

January 14, 2014 · By Staff Writer

Dear Editor,

There is in yesterday’s KN a story at page 16 which gives the impression that after Bashier Mohamed withdrew and discontinued his litigation against the Works Ministry and Attorney General, it necessarily meant that it was not Mr Mohamed’s land. The ministry in that story is asserting that the withdrawal confirms that it was road reserve. Nothing could be further from the truth. This spin on the issue of the withdrawal has to do with the Ministry of Works wanting to deter and dissuade any other transport holder of lands and buildings in that vicinity from litigating for compensatory awards which they will be entitled to for deprivation of their properties as per article 142 of our constitution.

Let me make it very clear. The only reason why the matter of Bashier Mohamed v Ministry of Works and the Attorney General was withdrawn was a simple instruction from my client to the effect:  “Mr Ramjattan the other side and myself work out a settlement after days of negotiation. They want it confidential. I happy with that,  Sir.  Please withdraw.” I did as per instruction and filed same on January 7, 2014. The matter was fixed for January 10, 2014 before Roy JA.

The previous date in court was December 31, 2013. On that date, myself and N Hughes, Associate Counsel, argued that the Attorney General and Chief Works Officer had to purge their contempt in view of their naked violation and defiance of His Honour’s Court Order of  December 27, 2013, which had restrained any interference or demolition of property of Mr Mohamed on that Success lot. Bashier Mohamed had signed an Affidavit that though served with the Order, the AG and Chief Works Officer went ahead and demolished through their agents and servants. Moreover, there was a second point made by us and that had to do with the Ministry of Works and the AG breaching the sub judice rule. In several newspapers and on the TV stations at that time, ministry officials and even the Minister were maintaining that the fence and buildings were on road reserve belonging to the ministry.  Our preliminary argument was that unless the contempt was purged, namely, that the contemptors restore the demolished buildings and fence, they ought not to be heard on any substantive issue.

The Attorney General attempted to argue that the Learned Justice of Appeal had no jurisdiction to grant a conservatory order as he did on December 27, 2013. This was made short shrift of.  Roy JA made it clear that even if his Order was defective it must be obeyed. The AG then argued that he was not served on time, that is before the demolition of the buildings at 3pm that afternoon. This flew in the face of the annotation by a Court of Appeal staff member, Mr. Ronnell McKenzie, who had served on the said day at 1.40 pm on the Secretary of Chief Works Officer, and at 1.45 on a staff member at the Attorney General Chambers.

It was at this point that the Justice of Appeal then ordered that the AG file an Affidavit in response to what was alleged against him and the Chief Works Officer, the alleged contemptors of his Court Order. Additionally, he granted a gag order against anyone, including ministry officials and the press from carrying stories on this matter until further ordered. And he continued the Conservatory Order amending it to the extent of adding that the AG and the ministry officials must not attempt to enter the said premises! The Learned Justice of Appeal at the very end, just before the adjournment was taken, did exhort that this was a matter which ought to be settled amicably between the parties.

When I got the call from BM Soat to withdraw, it was the last thing in my mind that he was ever conceding that the land was not his. At all stages of the litigation I was of the view that compensation had to be paid for deprivation of my client’s property. But the AG and Works Ministry was saying it was their land since Burnham in 1973 had compulsorily acquired it by paying off transport holders. Strangely, at the trial before Chang CJ, no compulsory order was ever presented, nor any evidence of compensation, namely how much or to whom paid, was ever presented though this was asked for. And Chang CJ never made any ruling as to proprietorship of that disputed land! So there could be no Court Order in the ministry’s hand pronouncing that the land belongs to the ministry by Chang’s ruling! Absolutely not!

This propaganda by the ministry to go to the press once again and falsely assert that it will be lawfully demolishing other properties because they are on the road reserve since 1970s, is hogwash. It is deceptive and very distant from the truth. It is intended to persuade transport holders in this area not to institute legal proceedings for compensation. I write this letter in response to such deception, so that citizens will be aware of their rights.

Yours faithfully,
Khemraj Ramjattan
Attorney-at-law