The Ministry of Local Government takes issue with letters written by Mr Mohamed Ally as published in Stabroek News of October 30 (I strongly support the demolition campaign on the states reserves but it must be done fairly’) and November 10 (How was permission given for a state drainage canal to be filled in’). And also with a letter written by Mr Balraj Balram, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Works as published by Stabroek News, in its issue of November 4 (‘Demolition by the ministry is done in a systematic way’). The ball really started rolling with Mr Ally’s letter of November 10.
He wrote: “Even if we are told that M&M legally bought the land from the previous owner, if that was the case, the fact is that it happened, whether or not under this administration and the illegality of buying a reserved dam and filling a state drainage canal cannot be legalized.” To set the record straight, here is what happened.
The owners of M&M bought land from Guysuco in 2004. Included in that parcel of land was/is a functioning drainage canal. Guysuco officials ought to have known that the drainage canal should have been excluded from the transport. For that error, the responsible official was scolded. Any lawyer would advise that ignorance is no excuse. At that time, a British team was managing Guysuco. This fact however does not excuse the local Guyanese who were also there. They should have been on the alert.
The legal anomaly came to the attention of the Ministry of Local Government, when the Eccles Ramsburg Neighbourhood Democratic Council protested to the Minister and complained that M&M not only encroached on seven feet of NDC reserve, but started to fill in the drainage canal without permission. I can testify to the fact that no permission was given, because I was the Minister to have given permission and I gave none.
When management of M&M was notified that the drainage canal is active and cannot be filled in, they trotted out the transport, alerted their lawyers and persisted. I personally spoke to a top M&M management official, who came to discuss the matter with me at the Ministry of Local Government. In the process of our conversation, I insisted to him that the drainage canal should not be filled in. Apparently neither of us convinced each other.
As preparations for the erection of a mammoth structure proceeded on site, 1 drew the attention of management to Section 147 of the Local Government Act, Chapter 28:02 which clearly identified the proposed filling-in operation as an offence. He called again at my office for talks and explained that he is not proceeding with the huge structure, but would be erecting a much smaller edifice as a ‘snackette.’ The snackette is visible for anyone to see. It is located directly opposite the Demerara Harbour Bridge.
To this day the NDC insists that the snackette is encroaching on NDC reserves. I can’t recall giving any permission for anyone to occupy the NDC reserve.
In addition, a pledge by the M&M owner to provide an adequate passage for drainage water en route to the Demerara River has now left much to be desired. The promised six feet wide concrete drain is nowhere to be seen. A huge three-storey structure is going up on site. This area is prone to flooding. In 2004 residents had filed a writ against the NDC claiming several million dollars in flood damage. Are we to go through that again?
The NDC which has the statutory authority to disapprove of the construction did disapprove of it on the ground of the blocked drainage canal. Both the NDC and the Ministry of Local Government are maintaining their disapproval of the blocked drainage canal. As a result of the ongoing blockage, central government has filed an injunction in the High Court.
Frankly speaking, I don’t care how huge an edifice is being constructed, as long as the drainage canal is left unblocked and water flow is unimpeded into the Demerara River.
There is irony afoot. In the case of M&M, Mr Ally and others have raised a stentorian outcry, but the government has sought redress in the High Court. However, in a similar case at Coverden on the East Bank Demerara, where a drainage canal was blocked in the year 2000 causing tremendous flood damage to crops, and where government had removed the blockage in a manner specified by the law, the management of the business place later filed suit in the High Court seeking redress and claiming damages.
But perhaps Mr Ally and others are only now being made aware of the Coverden case. They may wel1 be standing by to hear of a similar rumble erupting at Providence.
Under the Local Government Act, the competent authority where drainage and irrigation canals are concerned is the Minister of Local Government. Decisions to fill in a drainage or irrigation canal can only be taken by the Minister, after he has consulted with the engineers at the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority. Section 147 of the Local Government Act is specifically aimed at all private proprietors through whose property vital drainage and irrigation canals and trenches pass.
Under the Drainage and Irrigation Act, Chapter 68:03 at Part VII Section 59, it is also an offence for anyone to fill in any canal without the written permission of the National Drainage & Irrigation Authority. Ignorance is no excuse.
Yours faithfully,
Clinton Collymore
Ministerial Advisor
Ministry of Local Government &
Regional Development
