Dear President Ali,
Request for Information on the Dimensions for the Width and Amount of Land Required from Private Landowners for the Construction of the New East Bank Public Road
Many residents and landowners on the East Bank of Demerara appreciate that the government is constructing the new East Bank Public Road or the continuation of the Heroes Highway, however, we take issue with the lack of clarity from the government, on exactly how much land is required from private landowners for the new highway. We have been given different figures such as 300 feet, 400 feet, and 600 feet. The understanding of many landowners is that the four-lane highway is about 84 feet in width (East to West), as such, many landowners are confused about why the government would require 300, 400 or 600 feet of land for an 84 feet highway.
The ‘Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes Act’ states that the government must state the purpose for the land that is being acquired, as such, it seems odd that the government would require 300, 400 or 600 feet of land from private landowners for the construction of an 84 feet highway. I am therefore requesting clarification on the following from your Excellency and the government, the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Housing or the Attorney General:
- Firstly, what is the authority that allows the government to legally take 300, 400 or 600 feet of land from private landowners, for the new East Bank Public Road?
- Secondly, exactly how much land is required by the government to construct the new East Bank Public Road?
- Thirdly, what is the standard, transparent process for engaging private landowners on the land required for the new East Bank Public Road?
- Fourthly, I am suggesting to that the government set a standard of 100 feet of land from east to west as the land required for the construction of the new East Bank Public Road, where the road consist of four lanes; where the road consist of two lanes, the land required should be less.
- Fifthly, I am suggesting that private landowners on the East Bank of Demerara be given the option to sell or not to sell to the government more than 100 feet or the specific land required for the construction of the new East Bank Public Road, based on the dimensions of the road.
- Sixthly, I/we are giving your Excellency and the government, the Minister of Public Works, Minister of Housing and Attorney General until Friday November 20, 2026, to provide responses to my/our questions, failing which, we will proceed to the courts for a judicial decision and orders on our questions and suggestions. Please your Excellency, I do not mean to be disrespectful by setting a timeline, it is just a practical approach to determine the next steps and to have clarity on the questions and suggestions above, in a timely manner. In addition, the new East Bank Public Road has been under construction for over three years and yet residents and landowners have not received clarifications regarding these questions.
We intend to proceed to court for Court Orders on the following:
- Court Order on how much land is required by the government to construct new East Bank Public Road (Four lanes or two lanes)?
- Court Order on an interpretation of the ‘Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes Act’ on how much land is reasonable for the purpose of constructing the new East Bank Public Road, based on its dimensions, whether 84, feet, 100 feet, 300 feet, 400 feet, or 600 feet?
- Court Order that the government allow private landowners on the East Bank of Demerara the option to sell or not to sell to the government more than 100 feet or the specific land required for the construction of the new East Bank Public Road, based on the dimensions of the road.
We have learnt that the government has indicated that it is taking the extra lands for future developments. We will also ask the court for the government to provide information on specifically what are its future development plans in particular areas along the new East bank Public Road, and the basis for the government determining that its future development plans are superior to the future development plans of the private landowners.
Your Excellency, these lands will become prime lands after the new road is constructed and will create an opportunity for economic and social stability for hundreds of private landowners. When the government purchase these prime lands from private landowners and resell them to foreigners, businesses, etc., it is transferring wealth from the current private landowners to others. It also provides economic and financial stability for foreigners and businesses beyond the oil and gas era, because after the oil boom, these foreigners, businesses, among others will have prime real estate which translates to financial security. The private landowners ought to be given the option to use these prime lands for their own economic, financial and social development or sustainable development.
As a part of the Building Our Dream Guyana Movement – Building Our Dream Village initiative, and my research on ‘Land Law and Social Policy’, I am developing what I call a ‘Sustainable Development and Prosperity Index for Villages’, and private landownership is one of the key indicators to show that residents in villages are transitioning from poverty to the category of prosperity. This could also be included in the government’s ‘Model Village Initiative’ for villages along the East Bank of Demerara. If private landowners are allowed to keep their lands along the new East Bank Public Road, it will reduce poverty significantly for hundreds of landowners and advance the national sustainable development agenda, significantly.
The government’s economic policy should be inclusive, but this policy or approach with land acquisition for the construction of the new East Bank Public Road is not inclusive and is in violation of Article 13 of the Constitution which states that ‘The principal objective of the political system of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organisations in the management and decision-making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well-being’.
We will also seek an Order from the court on whether the approach by the government to the acquisition of 300, 400 or 600 feet of land for an 84 feet highway/road is in violation of Article 13 of the Constitution.
We will also ask the court for a decision on whether the government or government authorities can force or use coercive means to obtain the consent of private landowners along the East Bank of Demerara for executing sale deeds or Agreements of Sale for more land that what is required for the construction of the new East Bank Public Road. In a decision in the Allahabad High Court or the High Court of the Judicature of Allahabad, in the State of Uttar Pradesh in India, on August 21, 2026, the Court ruled that government, or government authorities cannot force private landowners to execute sale of deeds for the acquisition of lands. The Court further ruled that land can be purchased by the government and government authorities only when the owner voluntarily agrees to sell and both parties mutually agree on the sale price. The court further ruled that if no such consent is forthcoming, the state government would have to follow the statutory land acquisition procedure. However, in the case of Guyana, although there is the ‘Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes Act’, the Act is vague and allows the government to go on a land grabbing expedition by trying to apply compulsory acquisition or acquiring 300, 400 and 600, or possibly 2000 feet of land for an 84 feet highway/road. Therefore, a judicial review is necessary for the Courts in Guyana to determine how much land is reasonable under compulsory acquisition for the 84 feet East Bank Demerara highway/road.
Sincerely,
Audreyanna Thomas
On behalf of residents and landowners on the East Bank of Demerara
Rule of Law Advisor
Masters of Jurisprudence in Rule of Law for Development
