Dear Editor,
The persistent reaction of the Opposition in Guyana whenever issues of squatting arise exposes a troubling absence of leadership and honesty.
Instead of providing guidance and education to their constituencies, Opposition figures are quick to assign blame to the Government for every displacement that occurs, even when those situations arise from individuals occupying privately owned lands illegally.
Squatting, by law, is illegal in Guyana. This is not a new or ambiguous principle; it is clearly established within the legal framework that protects property rights and orderly development in a civilised society.
At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the Government of Guyana has implemented one of the most aggressive and expansive housing programmes in the country’s history.
Thousands of house lots have been allocated, new housing schemes are being developed, and infrastructure – roads, electricity, and water – is being expanded continuously to accommodate growing demand. The programme is specifically designed to provide legal pathways for citizens to become landowners and homeowners, allowing families to build wealth, security, and stability through legitimate means.
Despite these efforts, there remains a tendency by some political actors to exploit humanitarian concerns surrounding squatting for cheap political mileage. When individuals are removed from lands that belong to private citizens, the narrative is immediately twisted to suggest Government neglect or hostility. This is misleading. The rule of law must apply equally, and the rights of lawful property owners must be respected.
A responsible Opposition would help educate the public on these realities rather than encouraging the dangerous belief that occupying land illegally entitles someone to permanent ownership.
It is also important to confront a reality that is often ignored in these debates. Not every case of squatting involves persons in the most desperate circumstances. There are numerous instances where individuals have constructed substantial concrete or even double-storey homes on lands that they know do not belong to them.
Such actions are not merely acts of survival; they represent deliberate decisions that disregard the rights of others and the laws governing property ownership.
None of this means that compassion should be absent. From a humanitarian perspective, Government intervention is often necessary to prevent families from falling into crisis when disputes over land arise. However, compassion cannot be allowed to undermine the principles of responsibility, legality, and order that sustain a functioning society.
Citizens must recognise that development requires discipline, respect for the law, and responsible decision-making.
Ultimately, leadership requires more than criticism. It requires educating people about their rights, their responsibilities, and the opportunities available to them.
Guyanese deserve political leaders who will encourage lawful pathways to homeownership and upward mobility, not those who exploit hardship and confusion for political gain. A mature society must balance compassion with accountability, ensuring that while the vulnerable are protected, the rule of law and respect for property rights remain firmly upheld.