–never told them not to accept alternative housing from the gov’t
ALTHOUGH Mocha squatters now face $2 million in costs after losing a court battle, Leader of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) has maintained that he gave them good advice.
During a press conference at Congress Place, Sophia, on Friday, Aubrey Norton, after being vocal during the squatters’ resistance to vacate lands they illegally occupied, has now said that he did not tell anyone to refuse alternative housing from the government.
This is his claim despite several reports of the opposition parliamentarians encouraging squatters to “stand their ground,” and later advising them to take legal action against the government, which the Chief Justice (ag) Roxanne George dismissed.
Norton said: “We never said to anybody not to accept alternative housing,” affirming that he led them down the “right path.”
He said: “We gave good advice to them.”
However, despite those individuals being misguided by the Opposition, President, Dr. Irfaan Ali has stated that he is prepared to work with them still.
After failing to prove legal rights to the Mocha Arcadia/Caneview lands, the remaining squatters must pay $2 million in costs to the case’s three respondents: The Attorney-General, the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CH&PA), and the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo).
The ruling was delivered last week by the Chief Justice (ag) solidifying the government’s legal ownership of the lands and its right to take necessary steps to remove the squatters.
The lands were owned by GuySuCo and later transferred to the CH&PA.
Also, Attorney-at-law Ralph Ramkarran had even noted that there are lessons to be learnt from the recent dismissal of the Mocha squatters’ High Court case.
Ramkarran noted this over the weekend in his Conversation Tree blog, where he said: “The Mocha-Arcadia squatters were grossly misled in an effort to politicise and/or ‘ethnicise’ a situation by confrontation.”
The case which was brought by the three persons seeking relief for the demolition of their “homes”, alleged constitutional beaches, deprivation of property rights, and degrading treatment.
However, Chief Justice George ruled against the applicants, stating that they had no legal claim to the land, and had refused multiple opportunities for relocation.
Giving some background about the matter, Ramkarran said that the dispute stemmed from a long-standing issue of squatting in Mocha-Arcadia, where several residents occupied State-owned land that was designated for a major roadway project.
The majority of squatters accepted government compensation and alternative housing, while seven of them refused to relocate despite negotiations dating back to 2008.
He said the Ministry of Housing had offered the squatters substantial compensation and alternative land, but some rejected the offers outright, with one person reportedly demanding as much as $60 million.
In January 2023, after years of unsuccessful negotiations, the government proceeded with the demolition of the remaining structures, triggering a confrontation between officials and the remaining squatters supported by the opposition.
Ramkarran highlighted that the opposition played a significant role in supporting the residents, with senior figures present at the site, framing the evictions as discriminatory against African Guyanese.
The dispute quickly took on racial overtones, with critics comparing the demolition to ethnic cleansing and apartheid.
The Chief Justice’s ruling rejected the claims made by the applicants, stating that once the residents had refused the government’s offer of relocation, they became trespassers on state-owned land.
“The applicants would have become trespassers after being asked to remove from the land for which they had no title and to which they did not lay claim by any action or proceedings. They refused to move, and the owner or its agents would have been entitled to remove them. They stayed at their peril,” Justice George stated in her ruling.
