Arawak Homes has sought leave to go to the Privy Council to challenge the ruling of the Court of Appeal in the matter of the compulsory acquisition of land from Arawak Homes which was used for the Cleveland Eneas and Sadie Curtis Primary Schools, and the C.W. Saunders Highway. Chairman Franklyn Wilson told Guardian Business that the company had decided to appeal to the highest court in the Bahamas judicial architecture for two reasons.

"We have already applied to the court for leave to go to the Privy Council to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal, because we do not believe that the Court of Appeal's judgment renders adequate compensation. We think that the obligation of the government to the company is far, far greater than what the Court of Appeal said," he said.

The Court of Appeal increased the amount of money awarded to Arawak Homes in connection to the 1995 acquisition.

"First, its nowhere near enough," Wilson said.

The other part of the Court of Appeal's judgment which Wilson said "disturbed" Arawak Homes revolved around the manner in which the acquisition of the land had been treated in the judgment. The government compulsorily acquired land from Arawak Homes in 1995 for the Cleveland Eneas Primary School, and again in 1999 for the Sadie Curtis Primary School and portions of the C.W Saunders Highway.

In 2001, the government amended the notices of acquisition following a dispute over the purpose of the acquisition of the original acreage. The Court of Appeal's ruling questions the propriety of that action, but rather than rule that the government had acted improperly, the high court sent the matter back to the Supreme Court for rehearing.

"So if we have to go back to the Supreme Court, and spend more time, we might as well go to the Privy Council and get a definitive position," Wilson said. "We are going to the Privy Council not just because we believe that the quantum for the 1995 acquisition is too low; we are also going hoping to save time and money to get the 1999 matter settled."

Wilson did not wish to name a figure when pressed by Guardian Business for his ideal outcome.

"Whatever the court says, we will accept the process," he said. "My point is that the Constitution of the country promises guarantees people that when the government acquires your land, you will get prompt and adequate compensation. That is the exact words used in the Constitution."

"Well we're already into the 20th year, and if we have to go back to the Supreme Court, at the rate we went coming up, that may be multiple more years, so that is certainly not prompt," he noted. "We are also going to the Privy Council because we believe in the fulness of time -- and it is our prayer -- that the public will get a sense of the degree of wrong which was inflicted on this company through government conduct. Some things here which never should have happened."

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian