Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
The PPP/C government is breaking the law with shocking impunity and apparently without consequence. Further, it is presenting Guyana to the global corporate world as a state that facilitates lawlessness. This is not only undermining our democratic gains but also hurting our international reputation as a nation. Therefore, all law- abiding citizens must stand now against the lawless posture of the incumbent.
A few weeks ago, President of Guyana, Irfaan Ali, Ministers of the government, and representatives of local and international corporations turned the sod for a US$300 million resort and convention centre, at Carifesta Avenue- an initiative of a Qatari company, Assets Group. However, the problem with that activity is that the ownership of the land, on which this structure is to be built, is in dispute. According to historical records in the National Archives, the lands were assigned, by the estate of Quintin Hogg in 1887, to the city of Georgetown with a special covenant that they be used for recreational, and educational purposes. In fact, at the last statutory meeting, held Monday, February 26, 2024, the Mayor of Georgetown, Mr. Alfred Mentore circulated a transport showing the City Council as the custodian of those lands.
Nevertheless, in its usual high- handed style, the government and/or its agencies had already gone ahead and constructed a fence, on the land. The action of government is unacceptable and wrong; it should be stoutly resisted by the Mayor and City Council for the following:
First, the government failed to consult with the Council, the local government for the city- the Mayor and City Council- on this project. It is part of a wider foul attitude, on the part of the PPP/C government, of crass disrespect not only for the City Council, in particular, but also local government and local governance, in general. It is true that, the PPP/C government does not respect the idea, concept and principle of separation of powers. Still, it claims to be democratic, and fair. Had the government consulted with the Council, on this project, then the question of ownership would have been brought to the fore and perhaps, the concerned parties could have arrived at a practical and workable compromise.
But this Ali- led government has always demonstrated a certain raw callousness against the Council. This is seen in the way the incumbent has been reconstructing and reshaping city avenues. These public spaces are under the care and management of the Georgetown Municipality. Some of these were canals that were filled in and made avenues. Nevertheless, the government has not consulted with, or even sent a simple notice of intended works to, the City Engineer.
In relation to the avenues, there is a deeper environmental issue, at stake. Those who are doing works in the avenues are removing the earth from those footpaths and replacing it with sand, concrete, bricks and bitumen. By excavating the earth, they are disrupting natural habitats and affecting the ecology of our city. Also, those materials are affecting the run off of storm water into the lower aquifer. This stricture facilitates overtopping in certain areas, in the Central Business District of Georgetown.
Again, the incumbent has been doing all sorts of things in the city without the slightest reference to the Mayor and City Council. This includes building new roads and redoing existing ones, desilting canals and other waterways for which the Council has statutory obligation to maintain. Apparently, because their actions have gone unchallenged by the council they believe that they can also take lands and other assets belonging to the city. Hence, the saga at Carifesta Avenue.
Second, the government has broken the City Building By- Law. According to the Municipal and District Councils Act, Chapter 28:01, anyone, who is desirous of doing building works in the city must first seek and obtain prior approval of the City Engineer. At sections 3 and 4 (1) and (2) of the Georgetown Building By- Law:
“No person shall commence any building operations in the city unless he has given notice in writing of his intention so to do to the City Engineer on a form provided by the Council for that purpose and otherwise complies with the provisions of these by- laws.”
“No person shall erect a new building or alter or add to any existing building or execute any structural work to any building unless he shall lay over with such notice a plan of the new building or of the alterations or additions to the existing building or of the structural work for approval by the City Engineer.”
“Every approval by the City engineer of a plan shall be in writing at the foot of the plan approved.”
Under the City Building- By Laws, building includes fence.
Again, under the Act, at sections 14 and 15. (1) (a) (b) (i) (ii) 15A. (1) (2) “If any person commenced any building operations without giving the notice or laying over the plan or furnishing therewith the written description required by these, or without approval having been given under by- law 7 of the building operations, or if he shall execute any building operations in contravention of the approved plan or of these by- laws, he shall be guilty of an offence against these by- laws.”
“If any builder – (a) carries out any building operations without laying over the plan or furnishing therewith the written description required by these by- laws or without approval having been given under by- law 7; or (b) carries out any building operations in contravention of a plan approved by the competent authority, the Council may serve upon him requiring him to do any of the following- (i) to cease such building operations forthwith; (ii) to pull down any building or part thereof erected without or in contravention of a plan approved by the competent authority.”
And at 15A (1) “The Council may, if it thinks fit, direct the City Engineer to pull down any building or part thereof erected in contravention of these by- laws and the City Engineer is authorized to enter any premises with workmen for the purpose of carrying out any such direction of the Council after the owner of the building or, if his identity is not known, the proprietor of the land whereon the building stands, has failed to comply within a reasonable time after service upon him of a notice from the Council to pull down the building or the part thereon.” (2) “The Council may institute in any court of competent jurisdiction proceedings to recover any expenses incurred by the Council in consequence of the City Engineer acting pursuant to paragraph (1). “
By breaking the law, the PPP/C government is setting a very bad example for businesses and individuals in the city. This lawlessness, on the part of the government, could unravel the very fabric of our society.
A few months ago, the President announced a Barbados- Guyana Food Terminal, in Barbados, as part of the idea of an arrangement for Food Security. However, that proposed Food Terminal is awaiting the approval from the Town and Country Planning of Barbados. It is now clear that, the PPP/C government feels comfortable breaking the law to accommodate foreign business interests. Why should our capital be treated with any less respect than Bridgetown? The government is presenting Guyana as a lawless state where any corporate, business or individual can ignore the laws, by- laws, rules and regulations of the city and country. the PPP/C sacrifice respect for the law at the altar of private corporate interests. If ordinary Guyanese and builders are required to faithfully and fully comply with the building- by laws then why is the government itself not complying with those very laws and by- laws? Does the government think that it is above the law or that it has special privilege and exemption?
Finally, I am aware that some apologists and PPP/C neophytes would say that if the government does not own the land then it could take it by compulsory acquisition. But, again, this approach could not be applied to this case since such a move would defeat the purpose for which the lands were assigned to the city council in the first place. In any case, compulsory acquisition could only be done if the land would be use for public purposes. In this case, it private corporate interest.
