Dear Editor,
Even the election campaign could not hide the buzz of activities that came with the announcement of several acres of communal lands to a fisherman turn farmer at No. 67/68 Villages. There might be more. At the moment we are unaware of the full extent of what is involved. There were high-fives and congratulations enough to go around especially at the Nos 52-74 NDC who provided encouragement and material support: no objection to or no prosecution of squatters – “They are our people”.
The community, Nos. 67 & 68 Villages, has been battling squatters and parties for the return of a portion of land left over from the construction of a sea dam in the 1950s. The delay in returning the lands in question was due to a faulty-constructed sea dam that had to be abandoned. A second sea dam had to be constructed which took up much more land than was originally intended. In addition, Sea Defence Board had to ensure that second dam was adequate to the task before returning the excess lands to the original proprietors.
In the meantime, squatters were not far behind and soon produced an open breach with residents. To settle similar issues in other parts of the country the Minister of the Environment invited the parties to a public meeting at the Lands and Surveys Office in Corriverton in 2013. Before addressing the “issue” the then Commissioner asked the squatters to stand. When they did so he advised: a) he had nothing to say to them since he did not recognise squatting or squatters’ rights; and b) “prescriptive rights on public lands” were extinguished in 2011.
The Community was then invited to join the Commission to work out the claim to the lands. That part of the story ended when two letters, 1th September, 2016 and 17th Septem-ber, 2017, came from the Manager of Surveys, Lands and Surveys Com-mission, stating that the lands in question were private property and what was now required was the conversion of the area into a Land Registration Area. The first letter, 1st September, 2016, also made it clear what was required for such an undertaking: “All claimants would be entitled to make their claims based on legal proof, such as title by inheritance, purchase or adverse possession, presented at the time of execution for portion of Nos 67 and 68 Villages”.
A new commissioner came on board with the new government in 2015. Unfortunately, despite several letters to the new Commissioner we were refused. The first news out of the agency about the lands came in the celebration that erupted last week. We are still to know the details but from what we are able to observe it would appear that one squatter now owns several acres, about one third of the land in question.
Several questions come to mind: a) What is the source of authority of Lands and Surveys in the matter? There is no indication that the land was acquired by the state through purchase or legislation. If that is the case how does it come to own it and then make laws/rules over it? b) the community accepted the invitation of the state in 2013 to participate in an engagement. That engagement resulted in a certain decision with which the present occupiers of the office do not find favour. No problem. But what are the terms of the new engagement? What we have is an arbitrary declaration that cancelled one set of rules for another and then say: “Here you are?”
We do intend to make as much of this as we can. And, as I write colleagues and old residents from the community will be mobilised and since this is election season we hope to raise it with visiting politicians in New York, Toronto, Miami or wherever the diaspora is and visiting politicians eager to visit.
Yours faithfully,
Compton Francis
No. 68 Village
