Skip to main content

March 28, 2016 Source

The MMA-ADA says that 45 state land leases at Seafield and No.40 villages on the West Coast Berbice have been cancelled.

In a notice in the March 18th Stabroek News, the Mahaica, Mahaicony, Abary-Agricultural Development Authority said that President David Granger had cancelled the state land leases. These cancellations usually occur over payments arrears.

In Seafield, 24 leases were cancelled for acreages ranging from 5.781 to 21.216. Among the leases cancelled are the 21.216 in the names of Claude Rexton Cummings and Vilma Mary Cummings, 16.649 acres in the name of Michael Pierre, 15.73 acres in the names of Carol Innis and Lataya D’Andra Auyesa Innis and 13.844 acres in the names of Shawn Rockliffe Monah, Fariel Eldica Johnson and Fayeaun Shennella Johnson.

In No.40 Village, the cancelled leases ranged in size from 7.1 acres to  18.773 acres. Among the leases cancelled were 18.773 acres in the names of Anthony Pellew, Juliet Pellew, Hakim Pellew and Khadim Pellew;  16.975 acres in the names of Desmond Ross and Volda Ross; 15.217 acres in the names of Joylyn Nicholson, Gratien Aden Oswald Nicholson, Vaughn Aaron and Herman Yulotto Nicholson and 13.254 acres in the names of Roxanne Whyte, Grivon Grant, Gryia Grant and Gryan Grant.

The notice made the point that the President had cancelled the leases as the MMA-ADA recently had a decision in a similar case go against it where it had purported to cancel leases.

Last month, a rice farmer won judgement when former acting Chief Justice Ian Chang ruled that he be restored his land since MMA-ADA had no authority to cancel his lease.

“In the instant case, it was not open to the MMA-ADA to determine the legal validity or invalidity of the grant of the lease and then to purport to cancel it on the basis of its own legal finding,” Justice Chang had declared.

In the affidavit supporting his motion, farmer Phillip Johnson said that on July 15, 2014, upon an invitation made by agents of the MMA-ADA, he applied for a lease of state land situated at Seafield Village, West Coast Berbice.

After paying the requisite application and other fees, Johnson said in his affidavit, in November of the said year, he was issued the lease for agricultural purposes under Section 3 (b) of the State Lands Act, Chapter 62:01 and in accordance with the MMA-ADA Act No. 27 of 1977.

He said he expended high sums in preparing and maintaining the land for rice cultivation and was up-to-date with rent payments and other charges to 2015.

The farmer said that he then saw a notice from the MMA-ADA in the September 26, 2015 edition of the Kaieteur News regarding the cancellation of state land leases in Seafield, West Coast Berbice.

In his judgment, Justice Chang adverting to the State Lands Act, said “…only the President, and not the Commissioner or the MMA-ADA, is authorized to issue a lease of State lands.”

He said that if the MMA-ADA was aggrieved by the Presidential grant, the MMA-ADA or any aggrieved person could have taken proceedings in court, not against the President but against the Attorney-General, challenging the legality of the grant made by him. Such a challenge was never made in court – let alone upheld by the court, and therefore it was not open to the MMA-ADA or any other person to make a determination that the Presidential grant of the lease was invalid and then proceed to cancel that grant. The grant did not `bear the mark of invalidity on its forehead.’”

He went on to add that since the purported cancellation of the lease was detrimental to the applicant’s financial and pecuniary interests, even if the MMA-ADA had the legal authority to cancel the lease, the applicant ought to have been afforded an opportunity of being heard before any decision was made by MMA-ADA to do so.

https://guyana.crowdstack.io/topic/pn...d-executive-bullyism

March 25, 2016

Dear Editor,
If anyone needs to be convinced of the road the APNU/AFC is taking this country, then an event that occurred last week should clarify this matter.
It is very clear that this regime is the continuation of the PNC government of the 1970s and ’80s. Their methods of governance are vindictive, at which racial and political discrimination is at its heart.
In the main newspapers last week, there was a notice informing the public that the President had signed an order revoking lands from scores of farmers (small farmers at that). These lands were awarded by the MMM/ADA to small-scale farmers who owned no farming land.
These lands were under the control of a co-op society. Like most co-ops in the country, it was transformed from a ‘co-op’ to a de facto, privately-owned entity.
Four or more persons, claiming to be the executive controllers of these lands, leased it out and were collecting huge rents from its use. They also collected drainage and irrigation fees from persons and never remitted these sums to the MMA.
It is clear that they ran the place as if it was their personal property. These persons owed the MMA some $40M for D&I services.
Many persons, some of whom were members of the said co-op, petitioned the Ministry of Agriculture to disband this entity since it was clearly not a co-op society, but was being used as a tool to allow a handful of persons to get rich.
It should be noted that the four (or more) persons who were solely benefitting from this scheme were leading members of the PNC/APNU in the area.
In 2013, under pressure from many landless farmers from the West Coast Berbice, the MMA engaged in discussions with the landless and poor villagers who issued the call. As a result of those consultations, and the fact that the ‘co-op’ was collecting D&I fees and not remitting it to the MMA, it was decided to grant leases to those villagers.
Some sixty farmers were granted leases amounting to 16-20 acres each. These persons were from the villages where the land was situated and all the farmers were Afro-Guyanese.
After the 2015 elections, the ‘owners’ of the co-op moved to seize the lands from the farmers. They got the police involved and even moved to reap the crops on the land!
Clear evidence of bully-boy tactics – an outstanding characteristic of the PNC/APNU! Some of the farmers took legal action and the court held that the lands were legally leased to the farmers and could not be arbitrarily repossessed.
It was after this court ruling that the PNC used its executive power to repossess the land in favour of the four (or more) PNC activists.
The President signed an order to take away the lands from more than sixty farmers (small Afro-Guyanese farmers) and give it to his comrades from the elite.
A clear judgment of discrimination and vindictiveness can, therefore, be made against the regime from the outcome of this scenario.
The main concern here seems to be the facts that these small farmers were granted lands during the PPP/C administration. Maybe part of the money collected by the PNC/APNU activists went to the PNC’s coffers. The regime also seems upset by the fact that some of these farmers sought legal assistance from former Attorney General Anil Nandlall, who took the matter to court and won a judgment in their (the farmers) favour.
Therefore, for the PNC/APNU, this was a sellout by these farmers, who tried to defend themselves and their livelihood from PNC bullyism. Now, they are being taught a lesson not to cross the path of the PNC/APNU. The regime will use state power to smash anyone they perceive as being against them and/or their policies.
The philosophy of the paramountcy of the PNC has been resuscitated. This belief is that the state is the executive arm of the PNC (now APNU), therefore, state power is to be used in the interest of the party.
While one of the main characteristics of governance of the APNU/AFC regime was discrimination against Indo-Guyanese, this kind of discrimination is different.
This is clearly political discrimination at its finest.
Here we have small, vulnerable Afro-Guyanese farmers whose livelihoods are being threatened. The vindictive actions of the regime are to intimidate Afro-Guyanese, who are aggrieved by the actions of the PNC/APNU, to not go against them. They expect such persons to go cap-in-hand and beg for mercy. Approaching the PPP for help is punishable by the loss of one’s livelihood.
This action is a clear case of executive vindictiveness and political discrimination.

Yours truly,
Donald Ramotar


Ramu said the regime is vindictive and discriminating politically  canceling the leases.
Django
Last edited by Django

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×