As the country’s mining section continues to expand and more persons
seek their riches in the ‘gold bush’, Amerindian villages may soon be
finding themselves before the courts more often than ever trying to
defend the locations they insist are ancestral territories.
In a landmark ruling yesterday, members of Isseneru, a Middle Mazaruni
village, lost a case concerning their right to prevent commercial miners
from “invading the grounds of our forefathers.”
Justice Diana Insanally ruled yesterday that under the Amerindian Act
2006, the Amerindians, second defendants in the land dispute matter,
have no authority or jurisdiction to prevent licenced miners from doing
so.
The GGMC was also told by the court that they too, under the Act, have
no right to prevent or cease mining works without the proper footing.
The matter of the Isseneru community was brought to the attention of the
courts in November 2011. This approach stemmed from a Cease Work Order
which was passed on miner Joan Chang by the Guyana Geology and Mines
Commission (GGMC).
The facts were that Chang, who is attached to Platinum Mining
Incorporated and has a mining licence, commenced mining in the
Amerindian territory prior to November 2011. The villagers and their
council said they saw this act as a violation of their rights to
maintain control over their village. As such the miners were asked to
cease mining in the area.

Village and council members consult with lawyers after the ruling
That request was however ignored by the miners, leaving the villagers
no resort but to approach the GGMC. With the intervention of that
mining entity, a Cease Work Order was immediately granted by the
organization, citing the law which purportedly gives Amerindian absolute
right in determining the control of their titled lands.
Chang, however, felt that the action was wrong, unreasonable
arbitrarily, and unlawful among other things. In an application, the
court was asked to reverse the GGMC’s action by removal of the cease
work action, making the entity the number one defendant in the matter.
In another request on the same application document, Chang further asked
that the village be refrained from interfering or preventing the mining
works ongoing in the area.
In an almost six-page long decision, Justice Insanally decided that both
requests by the complainant were within the confines of the law, and
thus ruled in favour of the applicant (Chang). In her introduction to
the ruling, she defined a village council and the powers held, according
to law. She similarly related the role of the GGMC and identified the
powers of the entity.
The Judge then said that it was for her to determine whether the abuse
of power was an issue within the move of the GGMC and the community’s
village council. Together with that, the judge had to decide whether the
land and its location was in dispute, but ruled it out when she
mentioned that the defence had no difference in opinion in that regard.
Another point mentioned by the defence was that the village was at odds
with the miners not attaining permission from the village to mine within
their boundaries. They were also upset that the miner did not seek an
agreement with the village, but had without announcement, started work
within the territory.
The court in identifying the relevant legislation said that under the
Amerindian Act Section Five, miners cannot work on the Amerindian land
without permission from the village and under Section 48 of the said
Act; agreement must be sought with the council, as is the community’s
argument. It was however noted that none of the above were sought by the
miner. Justice Insanally however responded that the above regularities
were not necessary, since Chang already had a mining licence prior to
the 2006 Amerindian Act coming into effect.
There are provisions, it was made known, for persons already in
possession of mining licences to have access to purported Amerindian
titled land. In that light, the village does not have right to cease
mining work or intervene in the matter, the judge indicated.
In relation to the GGMC, it was indicated that the agency was not within
its powers to grant a Cease Work Order. To this, Anthony Paul was the
defendant named in connection to the mining regulation agency, since he
issued the Cease Work Order dated 24th November 2011.
Within the ruling, Justice Insanally mentioned, as she interpreted
according to the legislation, that the Amerindians in the matter have
the right to consult with the mining company and its agents, not to
cease their work. The GGMC in its capacity has the ability, she said, to
facilitate those talks and somewhat act in the interest of both
parties. She added that a Cease Work Order would be granted for the
reasons of protecting the state’s affairs, a private person among other
things. None of those reasons applied in the passing of the order.
The village representatives were disappointed by the ruling, and express
their intention to scrutinize the decision with their relevant councils
before deciding whether the ruling needs to be appealed. The miner,
Joan Avahnelle Chang was represented by Attorney-at-law Abiola
Wong-Innis. The GGMC was represented by Senior Counsel (SC) Ralph
Ramkarran, while the Isseneru village had the services of Attorneys
Stephen Lewis and David James.
The ruling has sparked much interest in the possible implications that
may follow relating to Amerindians rights in terms of their titled land.
“It is a precedent and it means that the titles that were granted to
Amerindian lands are flawed. These are deeply flawed as this case has
borne out and it also means that miners can work claims in any village,”
Attorney James asserted. He opined that the 2006 Amerindian Act must
now be taken to parliament for amendment and strengthening.
Head of the Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) Jean La Rose said that
it is clear that politics is at the centre of the matter, since it would
appear that the Government is granting Amerindians “shell titles to
land.” In effect, it means that communities have no power and miners can
do as they please, the APA head charged.
Author: Zena Henry
Source: http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2013/01/18/amerindian-village-loses-mining-case/