Dear Editor,
During the 1980’s, the then Burnham Gov’t decided to build a community centre on the Presbyterian Mission at Saxacalli, however the land on which the centre was built belonged to the Presbyterian Church. The Presbytery exercised full control of the building. In fact they denied the use of this building to some.
Approximately twenty years ago, when the Saxacalli Primary School was in a state of disrepair, S. I. M.A.P offered to build a new school. S.I.M.A.P made it clear that they would build only if the land was legally acquired by the state. The community, through the council, duly made representation to Presbytery. Presbytery replied by letter granting one acre of land for the purpose of building the school. This letter is in the possession of the school.
At a meeting held in the Presbyterian Church at Saxacalli, the REO, Mr. Bhiro (now deceased) told the meeting that because the mission is giving the land, the Ministry of Education was giving the old school building to the mission. The land was never surveyed and given legally.
In fact, when S.I.M.A.P brought materials to fence the building, they eventually
had to take these materials away. Editor,
I can bet that of all the schools in
Guyana, Saxacalli Primary is the only unfenced one.
Over the years gov’t has continued to build on land they do not own. First a Health Centre, next a teacher’s house and finally an ICT hub. All these buildings are built on mission land. In fact, the Presbyterian Church can use these buildings as collateral to obtain a loan. The Regional Admin does not understand the difference between land owned by Church Missions and land owned by the people in interior districts like Kato, Kamarang or Paramakatoi. In these areas, the council would permit building by the state, which is the people for the people. This is no problem.
On the other hand when the state builds on mission land, without being given the land legally, then we will get this mess where some want to eat their cake and still have it. I say this because, the building that was given in exchange for the land is at present being dismantled and the materials used on other buildings owned by the mission. This matter needs to be rectified and finally laid to rest. When appealed to the A.P.N.U gov’t, not surprisingly, they said they could do nothing. I am therefore appealing to His Excellency, Mr. Ali, President of Guyana, to look into this affair and bring it to a close.
Sincerely,
E. C. Lobert
