Dear Fellow St. Lucians:
I would love to discuss economic development for local St. Lucians, as opposed to discussing economic extractions by foreign investors, and the fleecing of our natural resource due to local greed. However, our reality does not allow me to do so. The ownership and possession of land has been a matter of serious concern for a vast number of St Lucians. The Land Registration and Titling Project (LRTP) was initiated for the simple exercise of discovering the extent of Agricultural Land in St Lucia and to provide title to families who own these lands. The Government of Saint Lucia then, recognized the need for agricultural diversification to simulate the country’s long-term economic stability. The Government’s proposal to USAID forwarded the premise that reformed land registration and governance to stimulate a market-driven economy toward higher and more wide-ranging production. However, that purpose got lost in the greed and grab that resulted and many people, generally the cash poor and uneducated, lost their land; lands they and their families before them had owned and occupied for generations.
The United Nations and the World Bank have advocated for land reform in developing countries to stimulate development. USAID has funded many of the land reform projects including the Land Registration and Titling Project in St. Lucia. Unfortunately, St. Lucia serves as an example of one land project that has failed the people.
I believe this to be a national problem that warrants discussion among the citizens of St. Lucia and to underscore that land reform ought to be a longitudinal endeavor that requires continued monitoring. It is imperative that agencies spearheading land reform insist that human rights are preserved when transforming land systems in developing countries. This is part one of my two-part correspondence to you. I start our communication with a discussion that includes what land means to us, the Land Registry, potential consequences of land corruption, and brief discussion on joining the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). Part two of my correspondence will later focus on my ethnographic observations, with specific examples, of elements that are conducive to land corruption in St Lucia. These elements are contained in the legislation that created land registration and titling, “The Land Registration Act”; in the provisions of first registration; in evidence of some of the dysfunctional Land Registry practices; and in the dysfunctional Judiciary.
In St. Lucia, land is one of only two natural resources; it is second only to its people. That is why it is essential that those responsible for its management do so without fear, favour, or prejudice. Therefore, it would be useful for decision-makers and the citizens of St. Lucia to clearly understand what should reasonably be expected from the Land Registry. In any land information system, including the Land Registry, its usefulness depends upon its accuracy, completeness, and accessibility, and also upon the extent to which the system is designed to divert corruption.
Land is much more than a commodity to be bought and sold, developed, and exploited. In St. Lucia, land is home, heritage, and livelihood. Land is life. It nurtures people, crops, animals, and ecosystems; underpinning the diverse cultures that make up the human family. The land sustains every aspect of our lives, providing fundamental life-support systems and the foundation of our economy and society. It is the place we stand. And also, the place we act. It is where we make decisions that affect not just the land, but also water, oceans, air, and atmosphere.
In coordination with other agencies, our Land Registry, through effective land governance, was supposed to support food security and ensure sustainable livelihoods that are essential for people and country. Disappointingly, to date there has not been a coordinated partnership between land governance and the Ministry of Agriculture. Government Corporations such as St. Lucia National Housing Corporation and invest St. Lucia (formerly National Development Corporation) have filled the void in the name of development. What has transpired does not appear to have benefited local St. Lucians. What we have are Corporations that are formed by Government for the purpose of acquiring land, whiles that same Government deprive citizens from direct access to land records. A review of land cases reveals an abuse of claim of indefeasibility and an abuse of PART 3 of the Land Registration Act.
Land matters are best addressed through formal means with governmental agencies responsible for the legislation, adjudication, and management of land. However, my attempts to do so have failed. Not only have they failed but upon inquiring about official land business, the Registrar of Lands has threatened a defamation lawsuit. This seems to be the practice in St. Lucia where attorneys and government officials will threaten lawsuits in order to silent public concern. The threat typically worded, “you will be met with the full force of the law”. This is especially disappointing as it is a conduct unbecoming of a government official.
The Land Registry is a public service institution which main function is public service; that means being available to the public. Without this most important but rudimentary function, a Land Registry is doomed to fail the citizens it is meant to serve. The Land Registry is meant to play a key role in protecting landholders against dispossession and promoting economic development. An effective Land Registry provides efficient and accessible land registration services, transparent land information, and clear ownership records. Such accurate and transparent information provide a basis for delivering the nation’s most basic functions – providing utility easements, levying property taxes, enforcing zoning and environmental laws – and are necessary for landholders to use their properties as collateral. The Land Registry’s function to protect real property rights is a key pillar in a modern, well-functioning economy. A functioning registry balances transparency and privacy. The capacity of a registry to perform its functions well also depends on its Registrar of Lands.
If I am to deal with the duties and responsibilities of a modern land registry system, then I must look beyond record keeping and processes and into the characteristics of its Registrar and general administration. A modern land registry is dependent on highly skilled and knowledgeable professionals who are empowered, accountable and responsible for the Peoples’ work. It is the responsibility of the Registrar of Lands to ensure that staff are accountable and responsible. The Registrar of Lands is responsible for balancing the Registry’s efficiency and productivity with quality, integrity, fairness, and lawfulness. It is for these reasons that we have indemnified officers of the Registry who act in good faith in administering the duties of the Office.
A Registrar of Land must possess critical thinking skills, knowledge of the job, and the virtues of professionalism. A Registrar of Lands should demonstrate supportive leadership, care for the public, and respect for customers. A Registrar’s attitude – how skill and knowledge is applied through personal values, concerns, preferences, and biases – is equally vital to the job. We should not accept qualities such as arrogance and complacency in a Registrar of Lands. Arrogance is always contrary to professionalism. Anyone who has gone through the grueling training necessary to become a Registrar of Lands justifiably has pride in what he/she has accomplished. But there comes a point where that pride threatens to become arrogance. Arrogance should not be mistaken for professional pride. Professional pride is quiet. Arrogance is noisy; it’s condescending; it’s rude and disrespectful. In the workplace, it is also dangerously contagious. It leads people to disregard important facts and make decisions that are destructive to others.
It’s hard to tell where arrogance ends and corruption begins. It is said that arrogance spawns corruption and is a defense mechanism for such corruption. And this is why arrogance is incompatible with the duties of a Registrar of Land. So, when I present the Land Registry with an application for a caution to be placed upon land in which I claim to have an interest, as I have done, that Land Registry is obligated to act, to follow the rules. When the Registrar of Lands is called upon to give an explanation as to why he/she has not acted, and he/she continues to fail to act as well as fail to respond to the many requests for an explanation, the registrar’s action or lack thereof becomes questionable. When it becomes clear that despite request for a caution, the Registrar allows the land to be conveyed to a corporation thus affecting my interest, then it begs the unfortunate question: arrogance, incompetence, or corruption? If any of these ailments exist within the Land Registry, then it is incumbent upon us to address them.
The introduction of the Land Registration Act appears to have provided opportunities for land grabbing by those who are better informed, are more familiar with formal processes, and have better access to officials and the financial means to undertake procedures for registration. The lack of transparency and openness in the land information systems, together with the presence of a dysfunctional system creates a perfect environment for corruption to thrive in many areas related to land governance in St Lucia. In a small economy such as ours, this sort of disruption in the land market threatens the stability of the macro-economy, hinders sustainable development, and can cause food insecurity. Yet a corrupt land system has implications for literal rights, environmental stewardship, heritage, and inheritance. Land corruption also has indirect consequences, damaging public institutions, impairing our trust in government, and causing lower incentives for innovation and higher inequality. In St. Lucia it has led to fundamental human rights violations, such as forced evictions, deprivation of property without due process, and delayed justice. And at its worst, these violations of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” may lead to social unrest and physical violence.
Land ownership and tenure (ownership of interest), the relationships among us with respect to land, are other casualties of our failed land governance. Property rights define the rights to own, use, control, and transfer land, as well as constraints. The security of ownership and tenure is the certainty that our rights to land will be recognized by others and protected when challenged. When our property rights are not recognized and protected in accordance with law, then that creates insecurity in land ownership and tenure. If you do not share my concerns, then the answers to the following questions may change your assessment of the situation: Have your access to beaches been lost or limited? have the serenity and scenery of your most cherished landmarks been or are in jeopardy of being compromised? Is our control of our ports in question? Have you witnessed the sale of large swathes of land to foreign investors in the name of developments or businesses that never came to fruition? Do you know someone who lost their family land by fraudulent means? Have we lost agricultural land to foreign development? Are our watersheds and natural drainage system in rapid deterioration due to unregulated development? These are confirmable, and thus, troubling signs.
Secure property rights are fundamental prerequisite for trade, efficient investments, credit access, liberty, growth, economic policies, functioning markets, and other engines of economic development. So, when there are insecure property rights, liberty and the economy suffer. Financial transactions involving real estate are also vulnerable as purchasers can face comparatively less scrutiny than traditional financial transactions. As a result, money launderers often use real estate to conceal funds in the form of cash payments or through shell companies. Although money laundering through real estate is not a new phenomenon, it can be especially problematic for small economies such as St. Lucia. The effects most relevant to St. Lucia is the slippery slope of pricing land and housing out of the reach of locals. Money laundering contaminates the land market and has a negative impact on legitimate, direct foreign investments.
Combating corruption in the land sector, most likely cannot be successful as an isolated action, it should be part of a national integrity system. Matters to be addressed should include constitution concerns; issues concern separation of powers, under which the executive branch – Land Registry, Police, Surveyor Offices, Government Corporations, etc. – cannot make judicial determinations; codes of ethics; and judicial missteps. Obviously, the judicial system is central to combating corruption. Therefore, considering the Caribbean Court of Justice as the court of last resort has created some debate. I hear the question asked: are we ready for the CCJ? But I ask a different question: Is the CCJ ready for us?
Based on the views expressed on various media outlets it appears a considerable portion of the public believe that there is a rush for St. Lucia to join the CCJ for nefarious reasons. This reflects St. Lucian citizen’s mistrust in government. Because the CCJ was relatively recently
established, I believe their reservations are also in the CCJ’s interpretation of law, and its aptitude for rendering equal justice.
The countries under the CCJ all have statutory laws in place. However, many of the laws ruling land rights, among other rights, are derived from common law. The precedents set by common law under the CCJ will touch all countries under its umbrella. What is adjudicated in St. Lucia will undoubtedly influence and be influenced by the CCJ. The CCJ will have to come to terms with the way law is practiced in St. Lucia. The St Lucia land problems I have highlighted, and will highlight in later correspondences, are a lot for the CCJ to consider. I believe it is incumbent on the CCJ to first consider the character of the jurisdictions which aim to join it. It is its duty, for its reputational sake, to ensure that its members first practice judicial ethics and sound jurisprudence. If the CCJ is to become the preferred arbiter of law, for international business, commerce, government, and other regional and international matters, it may be prudent for the CCJ to first invest in the ethicality of our courts.
Sincerely,
Claudius Toussaint, Ph.D., P.E., P.L.S.(NR), M.ASCE
