Judgment reserved in THA/Pigeon Point case

STATE ATTORNEY Dr Lloyd Barnett yesterday admitted that it was possible for the value of land to be affected by the public notice of  compulsory acquisition. However, he noted that there was nothing to suggest this was the case with the beach front property being  occupied by Club Pigeon Point (CPP) in Tobago.

Dr Barnett further explained that under the Land Acquisition Act, the owners would be compensated for loss of business in addition to payment for the land. In his submissions before Justice Mira Dean-Amorer in the Port-of-Spain Third Civil Court, where the substantial matter of the State’s attempt to acquire lands at Pigeon Point, Tobago, is being heard, Dr Barnett explained that the “mere” announcement of the State’s intention was not a foundation for a claim to be made. He added, “the threat in itself is not a factor in the matter.” Following submissions by Dr Barnett and CPP’s attorney Dr Fenton Ramsahoye QC, Justice Dean-Amorer explained that she would be reserving judgment in the matter. Dr Barnett, together with Karen Fournillier, Terrance Thorne and John Jeremie, instructed by Rohana Hosein are representing the State in the matter, while Dr Ramsahoye,  Rikki Harnanan and Adrian Byrne appeared for Robinson Crusoe Limited, operators of Club Pigeon Point, a subsidiary of ANSA Mcal.

Dr Barnett explained that the State did not infringe on the fundamental rights of CPP by simply “threatening” to take action and noted that a breach of natural law did not exist based on this action. In response, CPP’s attorney Dr Ramsahoye explained that there is a clear threat to take the land from CPP.  He said it was not just an announcement, but a notice of intent by the State to acquire the land and explained that this action is a breach of natural justice, since the step was taken without due process. He noted that it was CPP who would be in grave difficulty if the State decided to publish its intention under Section 5.  He noted that the situation is “not a problem for the State, but it is a problem for CPP.” He said that CPP is not saying that compensation was not enough, but explained that what they are challenging is the illegality of the entire procedure. However, Dr Barnett explained that CPP had extensive opportunities to be heard. He further explained that even after the announcement of intent, CPP used further opportunities to make representation and may still do so before or after any notice or order by the President is made.

He also stated that there is no basis for a prediction or an apprehension that the prescribed procedure of the Land Acquisition Act will not be followed in this case. He went on to state that an announcement of the likelihood of the statutory process being invoked, is not equivalent to an indication that this would occur without due process, so that the “mere” announcement could not create a course of action in constitutional law. Dr Barnett explained that there is no basis for the allegation of “bad faith” and noted that efforts were made to arrive at an amicable settlement. He stated that the THA’s Chief Secretary Orville London had realised that there were differences between what had been set out in the memorandum of understanding proposed by CPP, which did not reflect the consensus he thought was being arrived at, and which conflicted with many important points taken by the THA on matters of public interest. The Judge subsequently  informed both parties  she would try to deliver  judgment by October 23.