The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

ATTORNEYS representing the government in a judicial review centred on shanty town demolition yesterday revealed excerpts of Labour Minister Dion Foulkes’ most recent affidavits, in which he denies the government is attempting to eradicate shanty towns to take possession of the land.

The applicants — Respect Our Homes Ltd and Lumane Nonord, being 177 residents and occupants of shanty towns — had filed an application for discovery calling for the government to disclose all documents related to its plans to eradicate the communities. In an application for interrogatories in the matter, the applicants also sought to have Mr Foulkes answer questions since they believed he could provide the “principal evidence” in response to the leave to apply for judicial review.

Last month, Justice Cheryl Grant-Thompson granted the shanty town residents’ request to have Mr Foulkes answer eight of the 12 questions they put forth, to give them the opportunity to gain a full understanding of the government’s position. She made the order after ruling the respondents: Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis, Works Minister Desmond Bannister, Attorney General Carl Bethel, Bahamas Power and Light, and the Water and Sewerage Corporation had not fully exercised their “duty of candour” during the proceedings.

When the proceedings resumed yesterday, Kayla Green-Smith, on behalf of the Crown, said the respondents filed two more affidavits made by Mr Foulkes on September 24 and October 1, which addressed the queries they were ordered to answer.

For their first question, the applicants, who are represented by attorney Martin Lundy II, asked the respondents to state whether the government, or any person or organisation acting with its authority made a decision to take possession of the land. Mrs Green-Smith said in Mr Foulkes’ September 24 affidavit, he insisted this was not the case and noted the government’s shanty town reformation project was not “predicated on the desire to take land”.

Asked whether the government created a policy to “eradicate or irretrievably eliminate” shanty towns in the country, Mr Foulkes said there “was no policy of eradication,” and instead claimed the government’s reform initiative was designed to facilitate the removal of “unregulated structures” in the communities that are not compliant with the building codes.

In his affidavit, Mr Foulkes said the government has established a “mechanism” to identify regulated housing options for the relocation and integration of affected individuals. He also noted addressing illegally built structures would improve the quality of life for all shanty town residents.

When asked to state whether the respondents maintained that the notices they issued in July were valid, Mr Foulkes said this was still the case and indicated the government still intended to rely on them.

Another question the applicants put forth to Mr Foulkes asked him to identify which houses or other structures the respondents considered to be compliant with the building code. In response, Mr Foulkes said he was advised by the acting building control officer that only two houses received an occupancy certificate. He further advised that there were 16 other completed houses that had received a building permit, but did not obtain the necessary inspections to acquire the occupancy certificate.

In the previous hearing, Justice Grant-Thompson had also given the respondents 21 days to give the applicants all documents relating to any plans they had to eradicate the communities.

During her presentation, Mrs Green-Smith said the respondents served the court and the applicants the bundle of documents in relation to the shanty town residents’ application for discovery on September 25.

The matter continues on October 16.