A can of worms has been opened
For Guyana’s 50th Independence anniversary, the Department of Housing, Ministry of Communities offered a special package to persons who were allotted government house lots. The Department granted a 50% waiver on the outstanding balance on these lots if the purchase price was paid off within a month.
In light of recent developments involving the Special Organized Crime Unit (SOCU), the issue is whether the beneficiary of that special arrangement will now be charged for obtaining a house lot below its market value.
SOCU may have opened a can of worms which will now call into question decisions not only of the previous government but also decisions of the present government.
Since the new government took office, the price of house lots for government employees had been slashed appreciably. Those benefitting from this arrangement have reasons to worry whether SOCU will come after them or whether if there is a new government whether their lots can be repossessed since it is being procured below market value.
This is not a frivolous issue; at issue is property rights. It is one thing for a public official to be charged with misconduct but what are the implications for those persons who bought house lots below market value? These persons would have bought these properties in good faith. What is to be their fate now?
The existence of the written law can be traced back to the protection of property. Laws against burglary, break and enter, theft, appropriation, robbery and trespassing all have their roots in the attempt to protect property.
The Constitution of most liberal democratic countries provides for the right to own property and sell such property, regardless of whether the property was originally state-owned. Most countries also provide for rights of inheritance that is the passing down of property. The question that arises now is if a person secured a property at below the market value, does this constitute fraud and if so when does the acquirement of a property below market value constitute an offence?
The Constitution of Guyana protects against the compulsory acquisition of property. It does not prohibit such acquisition but requires the payment of compensation by the State and at market value. So regardless of what price a person paid for a property, it can only be compulsory acquired if market compensation is paid. This remains the strongest defence of the right to property in Guyana.
The Government of Guyana is about to put up for privatization the assets, no doubt including land, of the Guyana Sugar Corporation. What happens if no private investor offers the market value for the assets, does this mean that the Sugar Corporation will not be privatized for fear of any sale below market value amounting to misconduct?
What happens also to the lands, which the Sugar Corporation gave to the Government in the early 1990s at token amounts in order to promote a housing drive? Will the then Directors of the Guyana Sugar Corporation be held liable for misconduct?
And what about the privatizations which took place under Desmond Hoyte and for which there was no competitive bidding? Will these controversial privatizations now result in charges of misconduct for those concerned?
What about the provisions of housing to persons within the government for which their contract of employment does not provide for free housing? What is going to happen to these persons and those who gave them free residency in state property?
