Minister Nandlall’s defence of Jagdeo’s Pradoville 11 houselot is puzzling

Dear Editor,

Please allocate me, temporarily, a plot of space in your letter pages to seek clarifications from the Honorable Minister of Legal Affairs, Mr. Anil Nandlall, on a question he posed Sunday evening to Nigel Hughes, Chairman of the Alliance For Change, during the fourth installment of the seven-part debate series, that centered on the “President’s Benefits and Other Facilities”, being hosted by the National Communications Network (NCN) on corruption in Guyana.

In the debate Mr. Nandlall asked Mr. Hughes what is wrong with former President Bharat Jagdeo selling his property (a house built on a houselot allocated to him by the Ministry of Housing) and thereafter getting another allocation of two acres (or a size approximating that) from the said Ministry.

In light of Mr. Nandlall’s question, Mr. Editor, and as a potential applicant for a houselot from the subject Ministry, I would be thankful if Mr. Nandlall can clarify for all actual and potential land allottees the following:

(1) Wasn’t former President Jagdeo treated preferentially when, unlike ordinary Guyanese, he was not prohibited from selling before the stipulated time (I think ten years after acquisition) a houselot allocated to him by the Ministry of Housing (MOH)?

(2) Wasn’t former President Jagdeo treated preferentially, yet again, when, based on Dr. Roger Luncheon’s High Court testimony, a call was made to the former Regional Chairman of Region 10 pertaining to a potential allocation of a houselot, far less than two acres, in Pradoville II?

Mr. Editor, in light of my second concern, I would be intellectually indebted to Mr. Nandlall (who  claimed that similarly to former President Jagdeo, the other allottees of land in Pradoville II could have also gotten two acres if they had so desired, and that there is no empirical evidence to conclude otherwise), if he can clarify for me, and perhaps all Guyanese, whether the call made to the former Regional Chairman of Region 10, is not tantamount to the empirical evidence he sought from Mr. Hughes in support of the claim of preferential treatment given to former President Jagdeo.
Mr. Editor, does Mr. Nandlall wants Guyanese to believe that former President Jagdeo was the only “entitler” to land in Pradoville II who expressed the desire, and had the financial capacity, to purchase two acres at GY$5M per acre? Or, Mr. Editor, is Mr. Nandlall saying to Guyanese that only former President Jagdeo was entitled to sell, before the stipulated time, a houselot allocated to him by the MOH and then be given another shortly thereafter? And therefore, none of the other “entitlers” to land in Pradoville II could have taken a loan, purchase as many acres as possible (since, according to Mr. Nandlall, it seems that “entitlers” could have purchase more than they did), and shortly thereafter, quickly resold at market value, and happily repay the loan.
However, Mr Editor, it seems to me that, contrary to Mr. Nandlall’s arguments, the allocation of land in Pradoville II was done not on the basis of market forces (demand and supply through the “invisible hand&rdquo, nor was it done on the basis of demand through the “visible hand”  (the “entitlers” whom Mr. Nandalall seems to claim were not interested in having the same size of land as did former President Jagdeo), but rather on the basis of “preferential supply” through the “visible hand” (the caller/s).
Cindy Sookdeo