Adequate compensation defined

31.JULY.09

Editor: Who is asking the government to remove “Adequate Compensation” from the constitutional provision that says the people should be protected from deprivation of property? I have to ask because I have never heard this argument and I have been listening. What I know is that the people called for the definition of the expression “adequate compensation” to mean “open/current market value”.{{more}} This fact is reflected in the draft final revised report of the CRC. Shouldn’t the government be listening to the voice of the people calling for a good thing? Whose constitution is it? The government’s or the people’s? Who elected who to do what? The people elected the government to serve them or what?

The section in the Constitution on freedom from deprivation of property essentially says that nobody should be deprived of private property except if it was needed for public purpose. And that if it was needed for public purpose they must be compensated or paid within “reasonable time” and the payment must be “adequate compensation”. The vague characteristics of these expressions as well as the reports of examples of abuse which took place as a result (for example a man getting paid very late after his private property had been acquired for public purpose) resulted in a change to this section in the proposed new constitution bill document. Instead of ending where the section currently ends in the existing constitution, it now adds the following “Provided that the compensation shall be paid within twelve months of the date of the compulsory acquisition” This is good, specifying the amount of time within which payment must be paid to if the government acquires their property for public purpose.

It is the other reality which is frightening, especially in light of the justifications being given for it. “Adequate compensation” has not been defined. What is adequate compensation? The government refuses to put such definition into the proposed new constitution. I heard the Hon. Prime minister say it is not a matter for the constitution and I also heard some of his radio supporters express that you can’t put everything into the constitution. I ask, what is so difficult in simply putting the following suggestion just below the one underlined above? “provided that adequate compensation includes current market value of the property at the date of the compulsory acquisition” (this construction mirrors the one above and incidentally is just one word extra -18 words while the one above is 17 words).

I have put the word “includes” in bold for a reason. I have heard an unintelligent argument which says that if we define “adequate compensation as “current market value” it would limit government to paying only current market value and they will not be able to pay extra costs such as relocation costs (such as is done now in the Argyle situation, we are told). This is the argument for retaining “adequate compensation” as is. It is a most nonsensical and inaccurate representation of the reality. There is absolutely nothing in “current market value” that says government will not be able to pay relocation costs if they wished to assist the persons therewith. After all isn’t the existing “adequate compensation” supposed to mean current market value? And if it is, is not the same Argyle example showing us that government can pay more than current market value, like relocation costs, as they are doing?

To silence this unfounded argument anyway, I have proposed the above. Let us say it must “include” current market value. This way, people will, by the strengthening of this constitutionally protected freedom, be sure to get the current market value for property and it will also allow government the freedom to give extra if they wish. Nobody who is serious about giving the people what they want can fight with that proposal. It satisfies the wishes of the people as was reflected in the CRC’s final report, while at the same time truly strengthening the protection of fundamental freedom from deprivation of property and to take it on would really reflect deepening of democracy, since the CRC had a consensus coming out of the consultations.

If, however, it is felt that government puts in road already and that is what caused the land value to be raised and, therefore, government shouldn’t be paying current market value…..then that is another story…one which I doubt very much any government leader will dare to publically use as a justification-not without imperilling their chances with the people in the next elections. Besides, many people put in road themselves by their lands. And the money used by government to put in roads does not come from government leaders’ pockets but from tax payers’ sweat. Also, the roads are used not only by the man whose land may run next to it but by everyone else. The government is not truly losing anything to pay current market value for people’s property as adequate compensation when acquiring it. They ought to take heed to the voice of the belly of the people in this matter.

Anesia Baptiste