A GUY'S VIEW: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere

To acquire is to buy or otherwise obtain an asset for oneself. Taking by force without compensation may allow one to take possession of another’s property, but it does not meet the definition of an acquisition in a democratic country. Our Land Acquisition Act provides for the taking of property for public purposes, but it does not provide for acquisition without compensation.

Mind you, section 5 of the Act provides that once both Houses of Parliament approve, it shall be lawful for the Governor General to declare that the land on which the Minister sets his mind has been acquired. But that is not the understanding of acquired that lay persons have in Barbados. If you acquire something, you pay for it.

It was at once both amusing, and terrifying, to listen to the commentary that this country was given by the Attorney General after the logical intervention of the judge in the Court of Appeal last week in the case brought by Mrs. Ram Mirchandani. Amusing because his was a less than serious exercise in public relations, but terrifying to see the rearguard attempt to further poison the minds of Barbadians against Mrs. Ram Mirchandani and to justify the Government’s action.

That show said that the Government had acquired the premises of the Mirchandani family. So has she been paid? How can you use the security forces of the country to keep a person out of their property, refuse to compensate her, and then talk about having acquired her property?

Was there a fear that there would have been a breach of the peace? If there were a concern that Mrs. Ram or her workers would have fought to protect the premises, then by all means, the police should have been placed on alert to ensure that any such activity is deterred or controlled. But if that were not the case, why were the police used to secure the premises? The Land Acquisition Act provides no role for the police.

After the exclusion of the owners and having exclusive control of the premises, Government departments that would never have entered those premises on their own, suddenly descended on Bay Street, and in one day, produced damning reports of what they found. If these visits were not orchestrated from above them, the sun did not rise this morning.

We are told that Ministry of Health officials entered the building and found that it was a health threat to anyone entering the building. What a thing. But only the week before that inauspicious entry, persons were working there and shopping there, without incident. So what would have happened since the exclusion of the owners to make it so dangerous?

They were quickly followed by the Barbados Fire Service. That department has the responsibility of visiting premises to ensure that they are safe and not in contravention of the building requirements that could render them unsafe. Coincidentally, the building in question is within two minutes walking distance of the Barbados Fire Service. But only last week after the owners were excluded and the owners appealed the judgment of the court at first instance, did they find it necessary to move in and conduct an inspection. In an almost self-condemnatory statement, they found that the building was not fit for purpose and constitutes a danger to life.

But that was not sufficient to make the case. The Chief Labour Officer was called in. That department’s findings? The building was not fit for the employment of individuals. One has no reason to think that this would have been the state of the building before the Government took possession of it and excluded the owners and their workers.

And then the Barbados Water Authority moved in. According to what was said, they found four illegal water connections. As I understand it, these connections had to be illegal because the Water Authority had disconnected the service to that building some time before. How long before? Business was being conducted there and it could not have been the case that this was done without a water supply. So why did the Barbados Water Authority not investigate how a business the size of that operation, employing the people it employed, could operate without water?

I did not hear the news report for myself, but I am told that one newsroom which is a member of the choir was pursuing the story, only to discover that the water connections to the building were metered. Metered and illegal?

This overkill is unsightly and in poor taste. As far as I understand, the Mirchandanis have chosen not to challenge the questionable definition of public purpose which the Government used to take their property. What was requested was the opportunity to try to dispose of remaining stock during the Christmas period and a demand for fair compensation. What is unreasonable about that? One is only fair and the other is a legal requirement.

Yesterday, it was thousands of Government workers. Today, it is the Mirchandinis. Who will it be tomorrow? I find myself going back to this sage poem and its message too often:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out?
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out?
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out?
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me?and there was no one left to speak for me.”

There have been a number of variations of this Martin Niemöller poem, but the variations do not change the import. We cannot turn a blind eye to injustice, depending on who is the target of the unfair behaviour. Our day will come too. And karma is not dead.

Barbados Advocate

Mailing Address:
Advocate Publishers (2000) Inc
Fontabelle, St. Michael, Barbados

Phone: (246) 467-2000
Fax: (246) 434-2020 / (246) 434-1000