Gov’t Loses Land Battle:
By Quincy Parker -
Nassau, Bahamas:

Minister of Works Bradley Roberts and Prime Minister Perry Christie, as Minister of Finance, could face contempt of court proceedings – and possibly jail – if the government doesn’t pay more than half a million dollars the court says it owes the estate of the late Basil Johnson.

The government acquired the land – about 1.7 acres near the Milo Butler Highway – through Compulsory Acquisition in 1999 and has yet to compensate the Johnson estate for it.

Lawyers for the Johnson estate successfully sued the government and obtained a declaration from the Supreme Court that the government’s continued possession of the land without compensation is "unconstitutional and otherwise unlawful."

The plaintiffs – the executors of the Johnson estate – intend to take physical possession of the land if the money isn’t paid by next Tuesday. After that point, according to their lawyers, "any trespass by the (government) will be immediately met with an application to have the minister responsible for such trespass committed to prison for contempt of court."

Minister Roberts is liable because he is the Minister of Works and Utilities, and it would be his workers doing the physical trespassing. Mr. Christie is liable because as the Minister of Finance, it is his responsibility to ensure that the compensation is paid.

The legal action could have serious implications because the land lies directly in the path of the road works for which Minister Roberts signed a multimillion-dollar contract last week.

The land was compulsorily acquired in 1999, and when the project for which it was done was scrapped in 2001 it lay dormant until the Works Minister announced the project last week.

In the interim, the executors of the Johnson estate made numerous attempts to have the government pay for the land. Those attempts proved unsuccessful.

Cedric and Kahlil D. Parker appeared for Johnson’s estate, and asked the court for a declaration that the government’s possession of the land without compensation is unconstitutional and otherwise unlawful; that the government be made to pay the assessed value of the land along with other entitlements as the court decides, and that the plaintiffs may repossess the land, and continue to possess it until the government has paid.

The lawyers argued that "land is a unique and special form of property, rights to which are vigorously defended in Constitutions throughout the Western world. Such rights being protected from infringement by private citizens, but also and arguably more importantly from infringement by the state."

In a Supreme Court Order issued on February 28, Supreme Court Justice Jeanne Thompson declared that the Attorney General’s possession of Johnson’s land without compensation is "unconstitutional and otherwise unlawful."

The judge ordered that the government "do forthwith pay to the plaintiff the sum of $479,665.90 being the assessed compensation sum for the subject land plus interest…plus cost in the sum of $71,949.88 being 15% of the assessed sum."

"The court doth order that in default of payment of the sum hereby ordered to be paid, the plaintiffs are entitled as against the defendant to immediate possession of the land (and) are hereby at liberty to take possession of the land…until full payment of the assessed compensation sum hereby ordered has been paid," the order stated.

In a March 1 letter to the Attorney General’s office, Cedric Parker notified Jennifer Mangra – the attorney in the AG’s office handling the case – that "unless the order for payment is obeyed (by next Tuesday), the plaintiffs intend to and will take physical possession of the subject land."

"Thereafter any trespass by (the government) will be immediately met with an application to have the minister responsible for such trespass committed to prison for contempt of court," Mr. Parker said.

In his submissions, Kahlil Parker cited Article 27 of the Constitution, which provides that no property of any description shall be compulsorily taken possession of, and no interest in or right over any property of any description shall be compulsorily acquired except for public purpose.

The Constitution also provides that the need to acquire that land must reasonably justify causing hardship to the person who owns or has any right to the property.

In addition, the Constitution calls for provision to be made for making prompt and adequate compensation and securing to anyone with an interest in or right over the land access to the Supreme Court to determine the legality of the taking of possession of the land.

"Plaintiffs are before the Supreme Court as a result of the defendant’s breach of their right to prompt and adequate compensation and are also seeking to enforce their right to have the court decide upon and award said compensation," the lawyers submitted.

"The Defendant has violated the Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights on two grounds: failing to provide compensation in a timely manner, and failing to provide any compensation at all."

In the submissions, the plaintiffs accuse the government of ignoring the provisions of the Acquisition of Lands Act, dismissing the various attempts by the plaintiffs to achieve a settlement and prosecuting the matter without concern for the plaintiffs’ rights or interest in its own duty.

"It is therefore submitted that the defendant’s possession of the plaintiff’s land, the defendant having made no attempt to compensate the plaintiffs and having showed no intention to do so, is unconstitutional and ought not to receive the approbation of the court," the lawyers wrote.

Later, Mr. Parker argued that "the plaintiffs are not seeking charity from the defendant; they have a right, entrenched in the Constitution, to demand not only prompt but adequate compensation for land compulsorily taken.

"Both demands have been ignored by the defendant in this matter. It is the defendant’s disinclination toward compensating the plaintiffs which has put this matter before the courts, which is why the plaintiffs seek a declaration that the defendant’s possession of their land without compensation is unconstitutional and otherwise unlawful."

6 March 2007