Dear Editor,
The recent and highly unusual maneuvers by the Central Government to unilaterally reclassify municipal roads and appropriate City properties represent more than just administrative friction; they constitute a fundamental assault on the statutory autonomy of the Mayor and City Council (M&CC) of Georgetown. As a former Town Clerk, I find it imperative to address the legal and constitutional implications of this encroachment.
To understand the gravity of these moves, one must look beyond the asphalt and into the bedrock of Guyanese law. The Municipal and District Councils Act, Chapter 28:01[1], is the legislative charter that defines the Council’s jurisdiction. Under Section 274, the Council is mandated to “construct, maintain, repair, and improve” all roads within the Council area.
Specifically, the Act explicitly identifies “Council Roads” that fall under the direct purview of the municipality. These include critical arteries such as Water Street, High Street, Camp Street, Main Street, and Vlissengen Road. By attempting to unilaterally reclassify these as “Public Roads” under the Ministry of Public Works, the Central Government is effectively attempting a legislative “hostile takeover” without amending the principal Act. Such a move bypasses the democratic mandate of the local electorate and ignores the Council’s status as a corporate body with perpetual succession.
Furthermore, there is a dangerous misconception regarding property ownership. As I understand it, since the Georgetown Town Council Ordinance of 1918[2], all lands, streets, and infrastructures previously held by the Board of Commissioners were vested in the municipality by operation of law. Section 231 of Cap 28:01 reinforces this, stating that all property held by the Council remains vested in them. The absence of a physical “Transport” (Title) for a specific road does not create a vacuum for Central Government to fill. In law, “Statutory Title” is robust and meant to protect municipal assets from executive overreach.
We have seen such overreach before. In the landmark dispute regarding the attempted conversion of community green spaces in Bel Air Park, the courts reinforced that municipal lands are held in trust for the citizens. The courts have consistently signaled that the Central Government cannot simply “absorb” municipal assets without formal legal processes, compensation, and public consultation.
This issue also strikes at the heart of our Constitution. Article 71 explicitly states that “Local Government is a vital aspect of democracy.” This creates a constitutional separation of powers. When the Central Executive appropriates municipal properties, it violates the principle of Subsidiarity – the idea that matters should be handled by the local authority closest to the people.
The consequences of this trend are twofold:
- Economic Strangulation: By stripping the Council of its assets, the Government removes its ability to generate revenue (through permits and fees), effectively rendering the city unable to finance its own development.
- The Erasure of Local Authority: If the Council cannot control its own streets, it becomes a “paper tiger.” This diminishes the office of the Mayor and signals to the citizenry that their local votes are meaningless.
These actions are not “infrastructure upgrades” – they are acts of disenfranchisement. The Central Government must be a partner in development, not a predator of municipal assets. To ignore the law of 1918 and the protections of Chapter 28:01 is to invite a crisis of governance that will haunt the capital for decades to come.
Sincerely,
Royston King
Former Town Clerk of Georgetown
Royston King
Former Town Clerk of Georgetown
References
- [PDF] THE MUNICIPAL AND DISTRICT COUNCILS ACT CHAPTER 28:01 — faolex.fao.org ↩
- [PDF] CHAPTER 86. — parliament.gov.gy ↩
Source
- Roads and municipal properties in Kaieteur News, April 24, 2026