Home Politics Nandlall addresses land sale procedures 

Nandlall addresses land sale procedures 

0

In an extended statement on Tuesday night, Attorney General Anil Nandlall rejected growing claims of illegality, corruption and nepotism surrounding recent land sales by the government.

Nandlall acknowledged mounting public concern and agitation but provided a detailed defence of the PPP/C’s administration’s land sale procedures through the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CHPA), asserting that these transactions were not only legal but followed established policy.

He went at length also to contrast the PPP/C’s land sales with the more controversial land dealings during the tenure of the previous APNU+AFC government.

Nandlall explained that land sales are strictly regulated by a formal process: potential investors must submit proposals, which are reviewed based on factors such as the volume of the proposed investment, the capital involved, and the long-term benefits for the country.

Once these criteria are met, the proposal is presented to the Cabinet for approval. He further emphasised that the price of state land is determined by market value, with additional considerations for the expected economic and social benefits—such as job creation, tax revenue, and infrastructure development—that accompany large-scale investments.

Nandlall’s remarks aimed to address claims that some land transactions had been made at a fraction of market value. He asserted that any sale prices were justified based on the potential for substantial returns to the country.

Responding to directly to allegations of corruption, particularly a claim that the government was involved in underpriced land sales, Nandlall zeroed in on the $30 million per acre figure which has become a point of contention.

Opposition figures including AFC Leader Nigel Hughes had suggested that this price was a giveaway but Nandlall dismissed these accusations, suggesting that they were either misinformed or deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

He pointed to the past records, noting that the $30 million price per acre was not unusual, especially when compared to the far more controversial land deals of the previous government.

According to Nandlall, the opposition’s attempts to paint the current administration as corrupt failed to acknowledge the vastly different circumstances surrounding the land sales under the previous regime.

Turning his attention to the record of land sales during the previous government, Nandlall outlined a troubling pattern of disposals that occurred during the period between the 2018 no-confidence motion and the 2020 election, a time when the government was technically in caretaker mode.

He pointed out that between December 2018 and August 2020, vast tracts of land were sold or leased under questionable circumstances. These included large parcels of land in prime areas like Ogle, Providence, and even along the Demerara River.

Nandlall detailed numerous instances where land was leased or sold without proper demarcation, leading to disputes over access and unclear boundaries.

He focused particularly on the sale of over 1,800 acres of land in the Ogle area by the former government, noting that in two major transactions, the government sold 900 acres of land per deal, totalling nearly $1 billion.

However, he said, in these instances, no deposit was ever received, and the sales proceeded without the required payments being made. Even more controversially, titles to these lands were vested to buyers in July 2020—months after the government had lost its electoral mandate.

These deals, Nandlall suggested, were made in haste, with little regard for legal due process.

He reminded too that in response to these transactions, the current administration, under Nandlall’s leadership, has worked to address and, where necessary, reverse the deals made under the previous regime.

In some cases, buyers were unable to pay the required balance, and the government has managed to nullify these contracts without resorting to legal action. However, in cases where a deposit was paid, the government negotiated with land buyers to resolve the transactions, often rescinding titles in exchange for refunds of any deposits made.

Advertisement
_____

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here