Recommendations for relief in relation to Order bringing Deeds Registry Authority Act into force

Dear Editor,
Your issue of Sunday, November 28, 2010, carried my letter questioning the legality of the Ministerial Order No. 31/2010 which purported to bring into force the provisions of the Deeds Registry Authority Act 1999 (My legal brother Mr Christopher Ram prefers the term ‘void and of no legal effect.’)

Now, I hate to inform a fellow man of his predicament without suggesting a remedy or at least a means of escape.  If the Minister’s Order published in mid-November which would in fact attempt to alter the character of the Deeds Registry retroactively to October 1, 2010 were valid, then a sane and sober examination of its legal implications would reveal that he has plunged his own feet and those of our nation into a legal/administrative morass of fearsome proportions.  So this Minister must be prepared to display to the nation today, and in writing, the plans and programmes he has devised for observance and performance by the Registrar of the onerous provisions and new functions introduced by sections 5 and 6 of the act.  Section 6 in particular saddles the Registrar, effectively from October 1, 2010, with all of the functions previously discharged in respect of the Deeds Registry by the Public Service Management sector of the Public Service Ministry.

I can say unequivocally that neither the Ministry of Legal Affairs nor the Deeds Registry as at present composed possesses anything like the quality and number of personnel capable of rendering those services.  The Minister is invited to prove otherwise.

So, what then is my helpful recommendation for relief?  It is that this Minister, in recognition of the magnitude of the problems brought about by his precipitate action, must be humble and wise enough to take steps immediately to rescind the Order so intemperately made, thereby creating the opportunity and atmosphere wherein the wise may sit together and address the following, ie, if it is at all necessary to bring the act into operation in the first place:-

● Obey the parliamentary dictate at section 7 of the act by discussion with the staff of the Deeds Registry in relation to their willingness to serve in the new registry and agree their emoluments.  This would involve interaction with the government and Public Service Commission.

● It would allow for involvement of the Guyana Public Service Union, which, though not statutorily provided, would be the natural and ethical course in a matter affecting the very quality and conditions of the union’s members.

● It would permit ventilation of the vexed question of recent employment of many young junior clerks on contract with emoluments superior to those enjoyed by colleagues many years their senior in service.

● Examine with appropriate advice and discussion, the means by which the Registrar may be equipped to perform the new functions formerly provided by the Public Service Ministry and indeed the Ministry of Legal Affairs itself.
● Put on hold the provisions of section 8 covering assets, property rights, liabilities, legal proceedings and protection of Registrar and officers of the old Deeds Registry.

● Parliament may be asked by the Attorney General to remedy certain glaring aspects of the act implicit in the following observations:-
(1) The act is cited as The Deeds Registry Authority Act 1999.  Nowhere in the act is the term “Authority” employed.  As a body corporate it is known only as “The Registry.”

(2) There is no Board of Directors with a Chairman or any Secretary. The Registrar shall be the CEO  (see 5(1)(5)).  This section 5(1) sates that the Registry (a body corporate) shall consist of: “Designated members” namely, the Registrar, Deputy Registrar and such senior officers of the Registry as may be designated by the Registrar, with the approval of the Minister.  What does this “designated membership” mean?  Are they intended to be the equivalent of the directors of a board?  Where are the “senior officers” to be found?  I recommend as an example the Revenue Authority Act where at sections 11 and 12 there is provision for a Governing Board.

(3) The Advisory Board (section 9).  This provision calls for immediate amendment.  Here is a “Board” really no more than a committee, intended to be headed by a Judge of the Court, the Chief Justice of all persons.  Although its product would be no more than advisory, there would be an ever-present danger that the Registry, acting upon this advice might attract legal action by any person.  How could we expose a Judge of our Court to such ignominy?  Is there not a palpable conflict of interest?  This must be remedied, and swiftly too.

Again, I note at 9(b) that the Solicitor General is proposed as Vice Chairman of the board. Well, Guyana has not had a Solicitor General since the death of Mr Julian Nurse in the mid 1990s.

At 9(d) there is provision for the State Solicitor as member.  This post has ceased to exist for close to seven years when it was ungraciously abolished in order to deprive a particular officer of earned emoluments. The Chief Parliamentary Counsel 9(c).  A host of lawyers who, I say facetiously, may encounter some difficulty in finding the location of the Registry Office.
The only room or opportunity for the inclusion of a non-lawyer, eg an accountant, financier or someone versed in management to be appointed to such board would seem to rest in the hands of the Guyana Bar Association, the President or Secretary of which may cede his position to such a nominee.

There is so much more to be addressed, since the act is merely an administrative device which increases the scope and burden of the responsibilities of the Registrar and is not calculated in any way to address or remedy the many glaring operational deficiencies in performance of the Deeds Registry partially addressed by me in my unacknowledged letter to the Minister of February 3, 2010 and which was graciously supported by the Guyana Bar Association.

But, it may be that a modicum of humility and a measure of that very graciousness may yet reside in Carmichael Street, leading to the immediate retraction of the Order and our moving forward together in the interest of the nation’s business.
Yours faithfully,
Leon O Rockcliffe