Acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire has dismissed the claims filed by the remaining six squatters at Mocha Arcadia/Caneview, East Bank Demerara, who had sued the state in September 2023. The squatters, claiming prescriptive rights over the land, sought declarations for breaches of their fundamental rights and damages exceeding $200 million. The court last Thursday ruled that the squatters had no legal rights or title to the land, which is owned by the state.
The contested land, known as Block ‘X’ Plantation Herstelling, East Bank Demerara, is now part of the construction site for the Heroes Highway, a major infrastructure project. In January 2023, the government demolished several properties in Caneview, valued at hundred of millions of dollars, citing the need for the land to complete the East Bank Road project. Evidence shows the land was not within the path of roadway. Government subsequently reallocated the land.
The Attorney General (AG) had argued that the squatters had been properly notified by the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CH&PA) to vacate the land, as it was required for the highway’s development, but they refused to comply despite being offered alternative housing.
In her ruling, the Chief Justice pointed out that the squatters failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate their claims. The court noted that the squatters did not demonstrate that they acquired prescriptive rights to the land before the enactment of the Title to Land (Prescription and Limitation) Amendment Act 2011. Furthermore, their evidence failed to show any entitlement to the land or to the alleged damages.
The Chief Justice also emphasised that CH&PA had engaged with the squatters, informing them that the land could not be regularised due to its use for the highway and that they needed to relocate. Despite this, the squatters, along with over 150 others, were the only ones who refused to leave. The court ruled that their refusal to vacate made them trespassers and confirmed that CH&PA had the right to remove them.
Additionally, the squatters’ claims for constitutional violations were dismissed. The court found that their allegations, including breaches of Articles 141 (protection from inhuman treatment), 142 (deprivation of property), and 143 (protection against arbitrary entry) of the Constitution, were unsubstantiated. The squatters failed to provide sufficient or credible evidence to support these claims.
The court also dismissed the claim against the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo), ruling that the corporation was not the rightful owner of the land, as ownership had been transferred to the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL) in 2017 through a Vesting Order.
In rejecting the evidence presented by Opposition Member of Parliament Nima Flue-Bess, who supported the squatters’ case, the court found it lacked specificity and relevance. The court further stated that it was contradictory for the squatters to claim that CH&PA did not control the land when their own evidence showed they had sought regularisation from CH&PA.
As a result of the ruling, the squatters were ordered to pay significant legal costs, which must be settled by June 3, 2025.
The PPP/C administration’s actions have sparked controversy in recent years.
The affected residents, mostly of African Guyanese descent, were displaced and, according to opposition parties, were not compensated for their losses. This case highlights ongoing tensions around squatting on public lands and the upholding of human rights and dignity.
