The High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Guyana has ordered the disclosure of several key documents concerning the construction of the new Demerara River Bridge, as part of an ongoing legal dispute regarding the compulsory acquisition of privately owned properties in Peter’s Hall. The ruling, which aims to ensure fair compensation for affected residents, follows a case filed on September 13, 2024, by property owner Merlynn Thomas, represented by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde.
Justice Jacqueline Josiah Graham previously denied a request from Attorney General Anil Nandlall for immediate possession of lands in Peter’s Hall, East Bank Demerara, necessary for the bridge’s construction. This decision allows for an expedited trial focused on determining appropriate compensation for landowners, including Thomas, who is challenging the State’s acquisition efforts. The residents involved in the case include Wilfred Branford, the Estate of Virieene Fredricks represented by Vashti Fredricks and Pearl Layne, as well as Joann Stewart and Malcolm Thomas. They have raised concerns about the discrepancies between valuations conducted by the State and private evaluators.
In her recent order, Justice Josiah-Graham mandated that the State’s legal representatives provide the court and the respondents with copies of the construction contract between the Ministry of Public Works and a joint venture led by China Railway Construction Incorporated. The court also requested all compensation agreements entered into by the Government of Guyana, including any related to properties required for the bridge project, along with notices informing Thomas of the intent to commence construction. Additionally, the court ordered the submission of any reports by the Environmental Protection Agency concerning the project’s commencement and its impact on local residents.
The Government of Guyana has initiated lawsuits against the residents for the compulsory acquisition of their lands, arguing that Section 7 of the Acquisition of Lands Act grants it the right to immediate possession. However, Forde, representing the residents, contends that adequate compensation must be provided, emphasising the notable valuation differences between the government valuation officer and private evaluators.
In a significant statement, the court highlighted that granting immediate possession without addressing compensation disputes would undermine constitutional protections afforded to landowners under Article 142 of the Constitution of Guyana. Justice Josiah-Graham reiterated that the State’s authority to acquire land for public purposes must be balanced by the requirement for fair compensation, reinforcing that “subject to payment” necessitates just compensation for property acquisitions.
The court’s ruling effectively pauses the government’s plans for immediate possession until fair compensation arrangements are reached. This reflects the court’s commitment to upholding property rights and ensuring that compulsory land acquisitions do not violate constitutional protections. The expedited trial is intended to resolve compensation issues swiftly while encouraging amicable settlements between the parties involved.
The substantive matter is scheduled for further case management on September 19, 2024.
