Given the sordid history of compulsory acquisition of private property in the Burnham and PNC era of the 70s and 80s, it would have been reckless for the APNU+AFC government, which has the reformed PNC as one of its principal members, to cavalierly seek to employ this weapon even if under vastly reformed legislation. However, that is exactly what it has done, liberating more fears within people about the return of the PNC of old. It would have been further ill-advised for the government to covet the plot of a small landholder for the purposes of extending a mere government office but that is exactly what it did.
It would have been inexcusable for a coalition that has presented itself as representative of all segments of the electorate and sensitive to the pulse of the public to so readily pursue acquisition of private property but that is what it did, immediately calling into question whether the AFC had agreed with this course of action or is quiescent in its various high offices. It would have been even more foolhardy in a struggling economy trying to attract investors for private property to be so readily in the sights of the government but that is exactly what happened. This is not a comedy of errors. It is a tragedy of incompetence, anomie and dysfunction. It lends even more perspective to the recent descent on the Walter Roth Museum with the intention of creating more government offices.
The Attorney General, Mr Basil Williams can argue all he wants about how the issuing of an Order under the Acquisition of Land for Public Purposes Act was merely the start of an exploratory process. That excuse completely disregards the long established practice of civil approaches to property owners without the threat of coercive measures. There is a commonsensical understanding in the public that any Order under this Act can have dire repercussions for private property particularly in this instance where the gazetted Order expressly stated that the “proposed construction of Government Buildings on the land described in the Schedule is declared to be a public work”. Furthermore, the owners of this particular piece of land had already signalled their unwillingness to sell the land to the state. Under these circumstances, the issuing of the Order can mean only one thing: there was a clear intention to acquire the land under the Act and that a process was set in train.
The pushback that has occurred since the exposing of the Order in Stabroek News has clearly led the government to think twice and it will no doubt reel back in what had been unthinkingly intended. The public awaits now to see what the government will do about the two Orders. Will they be rescinded or left to mould?
What is surprising about this fiasco is that the government has maintained a stony silence despite the risk of a range of repercussions. It has left it up to the Attorney General to try to extricate himself from the contretemps. This is bewildering considering that the imprimatur of another Minister, the Minister of Public Infrastructure (MPI), David Patterson was on the Order for acquisition. This would suggest that Cabinet or its members had had some discussion on this matter and had so instructed Minister Patterson as it is unlikely that he and the AG could have orchestrated this act on their own.
In the circumstances, it is for the President or Cabinet to explain to citizens the genesis of the intent to acquire private property for public use. The public would also want to know what the government’s policy is on the question of compulsory acquisition and the circumstances under which it should be done.
This episode has also underlined another serious problem that has afflicted this administration. Several of its senior ministers have been caught dissembling or delivering the most incredulous statements. This must have begun eroding public confidence in their word. The AG has made the charge that in relation to the Order for Acquisition of Public Property he was merely following through on a process initiated by the former administration. Top officials of the former PPP/C government have vehemently denied this and have quite properly called on Mr Williams to present evidence to substantiate his claim. This is important to public trust and the credibility of this government and the public awaits the AG’s response and his evidence.
The AG on Friday at a press conference also sought to suggest that it was the staff of his ministry who had developed the proposal for the Carmichael Street lots. “…those same lots… the staff that I inherited recommended that, especially when I was looking to establish a permanent law reform commission and a law review unit. The current premises could not have accommodated such a unit”, he stated.
It is incredible that public servants at the Attorney General’s Chambers no doubt being acutely aware of the sensitiveness of matters such as compulsory acquisition would have the audacity to recommend and pursue such proposals. Even so, why would the Attorney General, the foremost legal adviser to the government and the leader of the bar not immediately intercept such proposals and ensure that they were properly vetted and evaluated before being translated into the issuing of Orders? After having pilloried the previous PPP/C administration on all fronts why would the AG proceed with a mission he has claimed that it initiated, particularly one so controversial?
Coming on the heels of the public questions about the conduct of the Minister of State, Mr Harmon, the various insensitive statements of the Minister of Social Protection, Ms Lawrence and the acknowledged false information by the Minister of Public Health, Mr Norton to the National Assembly, the plight of the Attorney General raises the vital question of President Granger’s control of his Cabinet. The troubles surrounding several of his senior ministers suggests that there is no recognition or acceptance by them of the need for accountability to the public. This has, of course, been exacerbated by the administration’s abject failure to present as promised a code of conduct for its ministers and senior officials on which they could be judged. It is time that President Granger takes responsibility for ensuring that the conduct of his ministers is beyond reproach and that they are accountable to the code of conduct that he promised.
