|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Georgetown, Guyana (Credible Sources) Heated debate unfolded in the National Assembly on December 18, 2024, as lawmakers discussed the Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes (Amendment) Bill 2024. Among the most vocal critics, Member of Parliament Khemraj Ramjattan warned that the legislation posed a serious threat to constitutional property rights and risked tipping the balance of power further in favor of the state.
Ramjattan described the bill as a clash between human rights and developmental priorities, highlighting its potential to violate entrenched constitutional protections. He pointed to Article 142 of the Constitution, which mandates that property cannot be compulsorily acquired without “prompt and adequate compensation.” According to Ramjattan, this foundational principle ensures that private property rights remain intact, even when the state seeks to acquire land for public purposes.
He expressed concern over a proposed clause allowing the state to take possession of land before finalizing compensation. “The state never had the right to possession until, of course, compensation was paid,” he said, calling the provision a dangerous overreach that undermines constitutional safeguards. Ramjattan argued that such an amendment would leave vulnerable property owners at the mercy of the state, unable to challenge violations effectively.
Ramjattan did not hold back in criticizing the government’s motives, accusing it of employing “devious methods” to dilute property rights. He underscored that the bill’s framework could exploit citizens who lack the financial means to challenge the state. “What will the common citizen that is poor, has no money to pay lawyers and things like that do? They’re going to say, all right, boss,” he said, illustrating the power imbalance at play.
Turning to the government’s broader approach, Ramjattan questioned its commitment to transparency and accountability in public projects. He argued that infrastructure development should not come at the expense of constitutional rights or public consultation. “No feasibility, road must run like that,” he remarked, pointing to what he described as a pattern of arbitrary decision-making. For Ramjattan, the bill symbolized a troubling shift toward authoritarian governance.
Despite these objections, the government used its parliamentary majority to pass the bill, while the opposition rejected it unanimously.
