The Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) has issued a removal order against Marvis Halliman, nephew of miner Wallace Daniels, reigniting a long-standing land dispute in the Toroparu Backdam, Region Seven (Cuyuni-Mazaruni). The Commission, claims Halliman, or persons under his direction, violated the Mining Act by “disrupting the peace,” notwithstanding multiple court rulings that affirmed his family’s legal right to the mining claim.
The controversy dates back to December 2012 when Daniels applied for a strip of unclaimed land along the Puruni River. The land, located adjacent to mining claims held by the powerful Alphonso family, was approved without objections. Years later, the Alphonsos argued that their river claims—filed in 2009—extended inland to cover the same area.
However, a tribunal led by Magistrate Allan Wilson ruled in May 2024 that under Guyana’s mining regulations, river claims do not include the 300 feet of land inland from the riverbanks. Daniels’ application was upheld, and the GGMC was instructed to issue the appropriate permits. The court also struck down a retroactive 2023 ministerial order—issued by Natural Resources Minister Vickram Bharrat—that had sought to reserve the land dating back to one day before Daniels’ application.
Inspite of this legal clarity, Halliman was recently served a letter signed by Mines Officer Alvin Graham and witnessed by senior GGMC officials, ordering him to vacate the land. The letter, seen by Kaieteur News, stated:
“It has been observed and confirmed by the Mines Officer for the said district that you, or persons acting under your direction, have engaged in conduct contrary to the provisions of the Mining Act and the Regulations thereunder, thereby disrupting the peace and orders issued previously.”
The GGMC cited Regulations 98 and 154, which give Mines Officers authority to remove individuals whose actions may threaten peace or disrupt proper mining operations. Halliman was given 72 hours to remove all equipment and personnel from the site or face forfeiture and potential legal action.
Halliman, who has consistently maintained that his operations were lawful, says he has since filed a writ of mandamus and intends to seek a contempt order against the GGMC.
Public backlash over the decision has been swift and sharp. One concerned member of the public criticised the GGMC’s actions, calling them part of a broader pattern of institutional bias favouring politically connected mining magnates. They argued that such actions should be “condemned and subjected to a court-appointed investigation, as state-controlled bodies like the police cannot be expected to deliver justice to small miners.”
This isn’t the first time the integrity of the process has come under scrutiny. When Daniels initially secured the claim, GGMC invited him to a meeting with Andron Alphonso and his legal team in an attempt to mediate. Alphonso claimed he would have applied for the land had he known it was available, but the mediation failed. Importantly, court records indicate Alphonso never filed an application for the disputed land, only raising objections after Daniels had already secured the claim.
The same member of the public went on to say that “any meaningful investigation into the mining sector should go beyond the Guyana Gold Board and also include the GGMC and the Minister responsible,” referencing ongoing allegations of corruption, including the misuse of authority to distribute mining concessions and personal involvement in the industry.
In September 2025, Halliman released a video showing a confrontation between him and an armed man allegedly acting on behalf of the large-scale miner. In the footage, the man demands Halliman and his workers vacate the land. Halliman asserts in the video that the disputed area is clearly outside the Alphonso family’s claim, according to mining maps and regulations.
The same member of the public described the GGMC’s move to dispossess Halliman—after he lawfully defended his concession—as “outrageous and unlawful,” adding that “removing a legitimate title holder under the guise of disorderly conduct, especially in favour of a politically aligned competitor, is a blatant display of unchecked power by the PPP administration.”
GGMC has challenged the tribunal’s decision twice in the High Court, arguing that the land was already closed off by the 2023 ministerial order and that the tribunal’s decision was unlawful. Both attempts were dismissed by the court, which reaffirmed that Daniels’ application had faced no objections and that Alphonso had no legal claim to the land.
In light of these setbacks in court, the GGMC’s recent removal order has raised questions about the impartiality of regulatory agencies and the influence of political power in Guyana’s mining sector.
Legal proceedings continue, and Halliman remains off the land he once worked, with public pressure mounting for greater transparency and accountability from state agencies entrusted with regulating the country’s natural resources.
