The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Government has again been found guilty of failing to follow its own statute laws, with the Supreme Court overturning its acquisition of land worth $1.23 million that was seized for a public park in Pinewood.

The March 12, 2014, judgment by Chief Justice Sir MIchael Barnett details a tale of incompetence that spans successive administrations, both PLP and FNM, in dealing with the purchase of 10 acres owned by three elderly sisters.

The ruling found that in developing the park, the first Christie administration - in a project financed by then-Atlantis owner Kerzner International, and which “actively involved” then-Pinewood MP and current attorney general, Allyson Maynard-Gibson - merely took land owned by the Freda, Lulu and Virginia Baker without even asking permission to use it.

Correspondence from the sisters’ attorney, Brian Moree QC at McKinney, Bancroft & Hughes, suggested that the Government had erred in using the Acquisition of Lands Act to purchase a lot next to his clients - upon which the park does not sit.

Undeterred, the Government’s response was to invoke the Acquisitions of Land Act again, this time to acquire the right property (the Baker sisters’ land), but the Chief Justice ruled that it messed up again by failing to properly follow the law and serve the sisters with its Notice of Intended Acquisition.

The end result is that the ‘public interest’, and Pinewood residents’ access to a key recreational area, has been jeopardised by the Government’s failures to follow its own laws and statutory processes.

The Baker sisters, who have a right to reclaim their property and remove the park facilities, are now in the position of waiting for the Government to pay a fair price for their land.

And, in a further wait for justice, they are also understood to be waiting for the Government to pay two Supreme Court-ordered cost orders, totalling over $170,000, that date from last year.

Setting out the details in his judgment, Sir Michael noted that the sisters were “not consulted” about the public park’s construction on their property in 2005.

Eventually finding out what had happened, their attorney wrote to Byron Woodside, minister responsible for lands and local government in the Ingraham administration, and also the Pinewood MP, asking for an amicable resolution to the Government’s “trespassing” without resorting to court action.

Referring to a survey carried out for the sisters by Roland John, and an appraisal conducted by realtor Michael Lightbourne, Mr Moree wrote on November 13, 2009: “A baseball diamond with surrounding buildings (the park) has been constructed on the property.

“We are instructed that Kerzner International donated the funds to construct the park under the supervision of the Government of the Bahamas.

“Our clients were not consulted with regard to the park, and did not give their permission for any part of the property to be used for the park or any other community project. Accordingly, that part of the park which is on the property constitutes an unauthorised and unlawful encroachment of land owned by the Baker sisters.”

Mr Moree added that this was an “improper and unlawful use” of his clients’ property, and expressed hope for a solution that would be “fair and just” for his clients, and “cause minimal disruption” to Pinewood residents.

The QC added that the Baker sisters would be open to selling their land for $1.23 million, based on Mr Lightbourne’s appraisal.’

Mr Woodside replied on December 14, 2009, noting that the park was built “with much publicity” and “substantial funding” from Kerzner International. He added that his predecessor, Mrs Maynard-Gibson, was “actively involved” in the project.

Mr Woodside pledged that the Government would seek to acquire the property from the Baker sisters, and asked them to consider a sales price.

Sir Michael’s judgment noted that a Declaration of Intended Acquisition, dated January 11, 2010, was ultimately published in the Gazette on the 15th of that month.

The Declaration of Vesting was made on February 26, 2010, and published in the Gazzette on March 8,2010.

“The applicants challenge the Declaration of Vesting on the ground that the defendants [the Government] did not comply with the provision of the Acquisition of Lands Act, and in particular the requirements” to personally serve the Baker sisters with notice of the intended purchase,” Sir Michael found.

He added that the Government’s filings admitted the Department of Lands and Surveys’ failure in this regard, but noted that Audley Greaves, the official responsible for the Acquisition of Lands Act, had filed an affidavit detailing the contents of a February 20, 2010, letter sent to Mr Moree informing him of the intended acquisition notice.

Mr Moree denied receiving that letter, and Sir Michael noted that a subsequent February 26, 2010, correspondence from Mr Greaves was only received by McKinney, Bancroft & Hughes on March 5 - after the date when the Baker sisters’ land vested in the Government.

With the sisters known to have an interest in the land, and the “onus” on the Government to ensure the Notice of Declaration of Intended Acquisition was properly served.

With the Government unable to produce evidence that the February 20th letter was served, Sir Michael found that it had not complied with its own law that had been imposed on Parliament.

Finding that the Government had failed to meet its obligations, Sir Michael said the Notice provision was “mandatory”, If it was not complied with, the Government’s purchase of land was “void and of no effect”.

The Chief Justice dismissed arguments by the Attorney General’s Office that the Notice provision did not apply to owners of vacant land, or that the Baker sisters’ attorneys knew of the compulsory acquisition plan.

As a result, Sir Michael declared the purchase and vesting deed “null and void”.

Tribune Business attempted to contact Mr Greaves for comment, but he appeared to be a ‘man of mystery’, at least to government switchboard operators.

In a litany of incompetence, this newspaper was transferred from the Department of Lands and Surveys to the Prime Minister’s Office, then to the Cabinet Office, before being sent back to the Prime Minister’s Office. None of these locations said they had heard of him.

Khaalis Rolle, the current Pinewood MP, could not be reached for comment, while Mrs Maynard-Gibson was said to be out of the country until May 12.