Dear Editor,
One of the very important social trends which the media as a whole has failed to focus on is the issue of squatting.
Dr. Luncheon told a recent press conference that the high days of squatting have come to an end and mentioned the social, legal and environmental problems which emanate from squatting.
The Minister of Housing, Mr. Irfaan Ali, on more than one occasion has pointed out that squatting leads to the destruction of the drainage system and floods, filthy rubbish dumps and latrines spreading disease, the theft from Public Utilities causing Government to have to subsidize these utilities with billions of dollars and the growth of drug selling and using. Mr. Ali has pointed out that Government has distributed and has continued to distribute tens of thousands of house lots countrywide and no one has an excuse to squat. Others have pointed out that squatting is the unlawful occupation of government’s or private persons’ property and breeds a culture of theft in the national psyche resulting in the weakening of Law and Order in Guyana.
But more important is the response of the Courts of Law to squatting. Formerly, squatters would come to the Courts claiming prescriptive titles to someone else’s property by merely asserting that they were in possession for 12 years and that they planted trees from the time they squatted and paid water and electricity bills, etc. Since owners were often unaware of these claims or were abroad and as such could make no court appearance, prescription was granted.
Now, the Courts make it quite clear from the outset that the Transport Holder (Owner), whether Government or private person, does not have to prove ownership. It is the squatter who must prove his case that he occupied the land undisturbed for 12 or more years and if he is found lying or to be trying to deceive the Court in any way, or if his evidence is equivocal or not absolutely conclusive, the principle that litigants must come to the Courts with clean hands is rigorously applied. In other words, if the squatter gave five points to prove his case and if one of those points is deceitful, then his case has no merit and collapses.
The courts are very likely responding to changing social conditions such as the vast emigration of citizens, the fact that younger people emigrate leaving older and less active folk to look after family property, and the culture of theft and lawlessness and drug dealing which flourish among squatters. The future academics from the Guyana and Caribbean Law Schools in writing and researching on the history of Law and Administration of the Law will certainly write a chapter on the remarkable response of the Courts to the bane of squatting and the positive way they are beginning to curb a social ill and restore Guyanese Society.
Yours faithfully,
Rebecca Connelly
