Welcome to Bahamas Local, Your Bahamas Online Search Engine

'Shanty demolitions do not breach rights of residents'

Wed, May 26th 2021, 05:12 PM
Environment Public Works/Infrastructure Tribune Stories

THE attorney representing the government in a judicial review centred on the demolition of shanty towns yesterday argued their plans to eradicate the unregulated communities do not breach the fundamental rights of residents.

It was also argued the action could be “justified” in view of the “overriding interest” to health and public safety.
#Kayla Smith made the statement as she completed her submissions before Supreme Court Justice Cheryl Grant-Thompson in defence of the government’s demolition initiative.
#“The applicants, in relation to their constitutional claim, have noted a number of grounds... these include the inhumane and grave treatment in breach of Article 17; invasion of home and property in breach of Article 21; prevention of freedom of movement in breach of Article 25; unlawful discrimination in breach of Article 26; (and) unlawful deprivation of property under Article 27,” she said.
#“We submit there is no evidence before this court in relation to any inhumane or grave treatment, any invasion of home and property in breach of Article 21, any prevention of freedom of movement in breach of Article 25. There’s (also) no evidence of any unlawful discrimination in breach of Article 26 and there certainly is no evidence of unlawful deprivation of property under Article 27.”
#Mrs Smith argued the evidence filed by Callenders & Co on behalf of the 177 residents and shanty town occupants “admitted” they did not own the property they occupied and were on the land illegally. She added that even if the court found that there was a breach of any of the fundamental human rights alleged by the applicants, those rights were “subject to limitations”.
#“We maintain that there is no evidence of any deprivation of property in so far as we noted before, the applicants do not own the property and the respondents’ case does not relate to the taking of any property, but the enforcement of the laws of this country,” she said.
#“We also say there is no ownership of property first of all and then there’s no evidence of taking any so-called property even though the constitution allows for it in relation to compulsory acquisition.”
#Mrs Smith said it was also important to “look at the fact” that the country is a member of the international community.

It was also argued the action could be “justified” in view of the “overriding interest” to health and public safety.

Kayla Smith made the statement as she completed her submissions before Supreme Court Justice Cheryl Grant-Thompson in defence of the government’s demolition initiative.

“The applicants, in relation to their constitutional claim, have noted a number of grounds... these include the inhumane and grave treatment in breach of Article 17; invasion of home and property in breach of Article 21; prevention of freedom of movement in breach of Article 25; unlawful discrimination in breach of Article 26; (and) unlawful deprivation of property under Article 27,” she said.

“We submit there is no evidence before this court in relation to any inhumane or grave treatment, any invasion of home and property in breach of Article 21, any prevention of freedom of movement in breach of Article 25. There’s (also) no evidence of any unlawful discrimination in breach of Article 26 and there certainly is no evidence of unlawful deprivation of property under Article 27.”

Mrs Smith argued the evidence filed by Callenders & Co on behalf of the 177 residents and shanty town occupants “admitted” they did not own the property they occupied and were on the land illegally. She added that even if the court found that there was a breach of any of the fundamental human rights alleged by the applicants, those rights were “subject to limitations”.

“We maintain that there is no evidence of any deprivation of property in so far as we noted before, the applicants do not own the property and the respondents’ case does not relate to the taking of any property, but the enforcement of the laws of this country,” she said.

“We also say there is no ownership of property first of all and then there’s no evidence of taking any so-called property even though the constitution allows for it in relation to compulsory acquisition.”

Mrs Smith said it was also important to “look at the fact” that the country is a member of the international community.

 

Click here to read more at The Tribune

 Sponsored Ads