Is there any lesson to be learnt by the dismissal by the Chief Justice of the case brought by three Mocha residents, Roxanne Allen, Junior Allen and Lashonda Ellis, for relief from the High Court for demolition of their homes, deprivation of their property rights, degrading treatment, among a large number ofother remedies?
The six Applicants were among many others who had established homes in Mocha Arcadia on land owned by the State. The land was in the path of an intended major roadway and the residents were required by the Ministry of Housing to relinquish possession. Substantial compensation and alternative land were offered and the vast majority of residents accepted.Seven persons did not, despite negotiations since 2008. Oneresident demanded compensation of $60,000,000 each!Eventually, in January 2023 the Government demolished the homes amidst a violent protest in which a petrol bomb was thrown and tear gas discharged.
The official Opposition took a prominent role in supporting the resistance of the seven persons and several senior Opposition figures were present at the demolition exercise. The residents were African Guyanese and as can be expected, the issue of race took centre stage with the Opposition and other opponents of the Government claiming discrimination and inequality of treatment when Indian Guyanese were involved. Other extremist elements had a field day, alleging apartheid, ethnic cleansing and other forms of ethnic bias.
Arising out of these events the affected residents filed a case against the Attorney General, Collin Croal, the Minister of Housing and Water, the Chief Executive of the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CH&PA) and Guyana Sugar Corporation (Guysuco). Among the declarations they sought are the following: (a) that the CH&PA acted unlawfully in destroying their homes; (b) that the CH&PA violated their property rights protected by the Constitution; (c) that the CH&PA infringed the their rights to inhuman and degrading treatment guaranteed by the Constitution; (d) prescriptive title; (e) in excess of $100,000 damages for deprivation of property in violation of the Constitution. Several other declarations were sought.
Space does not permit an elaboration of the grounds set out in the court proceedings in support of the orders sought. But the Chief Justice last Friday, February 7, dismissed the case and ordered substantial costs to be paid by the Applicants by June 30. Her Honour said: “The applicants have not established their cases. At the end of the day, there clearly was a decision by these applicants to no longer engage in regularization, which involved allocating other lands to them so they could relocate….The applicants would have become trespassers after being asked to remove from the land for which they had no title and to which they did not lay claim by any action or proceedings. They refused to move and the owner or its agents would have been entitled to remove them. They stayed at their peril.”
Her Honour also ruled that the former Mocha residents, who were evicted from Cane View, a government reserve for a new East Bank Demerara road, suffered damage to property, rather than “unfounded claims” of constitutional breaches, and should have instead filed a private law case for damage to property. The Chief Justice cited numerous instances of a lack of, insufficient or inaccurate evidence in several areas. (Quoted from Demerara Waves February 7).
Squatting has been and continues to be a significant social problem in Guyana. Back in the day, starting from the 1970s, many squatters were supported and defended by the PPP. They were dealt with unsympathetically and, in most cases, brutally. In other cases where the squatters were not perceived to be PPP supporters, they were treated differently, as in the case of the entire Sophia area. They were not only allowed to remainundisturbed by successive PNC governments. But it was not until the PPP governments entered office that their occupation were regularized. While squatting is today discouraged having regard to the housing drive, every effort has been made to relocate long term squatters.
Negotiations had been taking place with the Mocha Arcadia squatters since 2008. They were offered alternative accommodation and compensation. Most accepted and moved on. Seven did not, being either unhappy with the offers they received, or influenced by political actors to reject the offers and “struggle” for more. This provided an entry point for the pouring of intensely hateful rhetoric on a situation already inflamed by political agitation. The Mocha Arcadia squatters were grossly misled in an effort to politicize and/or ‘ethnicise’ a situation by confrontation. They were on the wrong side, their fellow squatters had settled, what did they expect to gain, and what did their advisers expect them to gain? Judging from the court cases, they clearly expected the court to justify trespassing.
This should be a lesson to persons or groups that have grievances. There is, or should be, no objection to such persons or groups seeking the representation of others, including opposition political parties, where they feel the need to do so. But representatives of such groups are under an obligation not to exploit such situations to the detriment of those seeking their help. The Mocha Arcadia squatters have now lost their homes, have received no compensation and are abandoned to the elements.