Dear Editor,
At the recent launch of ‘indigenous heritage month’ Sydney Allicock is reported as saying that, “…claims for ancestral lands which our foreparents used from times (sic) immemorial to hunt, fish and farm” now need to be supported by a village improvement plan.
That is utter rubbish. Nobody has any right to demand a ‘village improvement plan’ from any Amerindian village. Amerindian villages should just say no.
The Amerindian Act 2006, which I drafted along with Dr Arif Bulkan and the Attorney-General’s Chambers, clearly states that a village can claim an extension to its current titled area by submitting its name, the number of persons, the reason for the claim, a description of the area, and a resolution by two-thirds of the village. The minister must assess the claim based on occupation and use. If the village is not occupying or using the land they can still get it. The Amerindian Act requires the minister to take into account the village’s traditional or cultural association with the land and their spiritual attachment to it. If the village does not like the title proposed by the minister they can reject it and go to court. No village has ever done that.
The village must also submit a map prepared by the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission following demarcation of their title. The map shows the boundaries of the existing title. The village can see what they legally own and work out what they need to claim. For years the Amerindian Peoples Association and the Forest Peoples Programme, an NGO in rural England, opposed demarcation. Villages foolish enough to listen to these NGOs and refuse demarcation do not have maps. They have a problem.
“Time immemorial” and “ancestral lands” carry legal meaning. Time immemorial predates Richard I’s reign (1189). “Ancestral lands” are lands which belong to indigenous peoples. ‘Indigenous peoples’ can be a contentious term but in relation to land it is relatively clear. As James Anaya, the distinguished and internationally recognised legal scholar says, “Today the term indigenous refers broadly to the living descendants of pre-invasion inhabitants of lands now dominated by others.” Obviously “pre-invasion inhabitants” means whoever was there before European colonisation and their descendants must prove it to get land. In Canada, for example, indigenous peoples claiming land must prove that they occupied the land when Europeans asserted sovereignty. Only one indigenous land claim in Canada has resulted in a land title so far. In contrast the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples’ Affairs website currently states there are 96 Amerindian land titles.
Historical and archaeological scholarship establishes that some Amerindian peoples such as the Arecuna, the WaiWai, and the Wapichan entered Guyana after the Dutch and the enslaved Africans. These Amerindians cannot claim land as ‘indigenous peoples’ of Guyana if they were not in Guyana before colonisation. Some Arawaks, like the Spanish Arawaks who fled to Guyana in 1817, cannot claim land as indigenous peoples. Nevertheless, the Arecuna, the Wapichan, the WaiWai and the Spanish Arawaks all have land title in Guyana. The WaiWai have the biggest title at 2,300 square miles. Clearly the propaganda to revise the Amerindian Act 2006 in line with Canada will harm Amerindians.
The Amerindian Act process for a land title should not take much more than a year. After that Amerindian claimants should go to court. It really is rather pointless to keep complaining when you have a legal process to get an absolute and unconditional land title and a legal remedy if you don’t get your title.
Yours faithfully,
Melinda Janki
