DID THE PRIVY COUNCIL ERR IN THEIR JUDGEMENT?

One must come to bear in mind that all we are mere human and eventual all humans make mistakes and this is definitely certain in part, of the Privy Council’s decision on the John A.Gumbs Vs The Attorney General in Anguilla.

The Privy Council did err in their decision when they can conclude that “since 1975 there has been no public right of way over the path whether in its original form or as widened from time to time.” I therefore ask my readers did they know:

1) That during the phosphate mining operation in the nineteenth century between the years 1880 to 1890s that phosphate was mined from the Limestone Bay and Flat Caps lands, and that the phosphate was carried from these sites by donkey along the path that traversed over the lands that John A Gumbs now claims as his, and that the path followed the existing path or road to Roaches Hill, continuing through the path to the west of the Old Cottage Hospital and down to Crocus Bay where it was exported to its final destination. And that some of these sites of 1880s phosphate mining operation can still be found today on the lands to the north of the Kamique Project and west of the building project that Rayhme Lake sold.

2) That the various land owners along with people from the surrounding villages used this same public track that the Privy Council says is “not a public right of way” from the early 1800s until today as an access route to:
a) the various lands of that area,
b) used it to carry sand from Limestone Bay, on their donkeys, hands and heads for the floors of their homes, and then in more recent times, for use in the construction of homes,
c) as a fishing route to catch fish at Flat Cap Point, Sharp Rocks, Little Bay and Limestone Bay,
d) for the grazing of goats and cows by the land owners and surrounding villagers,
e) and such other customs and daily living that were applied to the lands from those earlier times until now, such as farming, picking wood, picnics, etc.

3) That if one visits the Land Registry and view the Land Registry maps 58715B Parcel 2, which is John A Gumbs land, and the adjacent maps surrounding this parcel (58616B and 58716B), that the map clearly shows a path starting from the Valley main road going north about 3600 feet where it abuts to the south of Mr. John A Gumbs property. Then for some reason or the other, the path skips his property which measures about 240 feet, and then continues on the northern side of John A Gumbs property and continues another 1800 feet to Limestone Bay. And if one examines the Cadastral records for the same lands of Mr. Gumbs that the field officer which happens to be the current Director of Lands, clearly shows in his field notes that the public path existed but somehow was not delineated on the Land Registry map 58715B, when it was completed in 1975. One must conclude a human error. This was also found to be a human error in the high court decision, but our Privy Council decides, in other words that this evidence do not hold water and that omission and errors do not occur in human processes. I guess they expect people and Governments to be perfect while they can remain in England and make mistakes in Judgment!

4) That in the late 1970s to early 1980s when the Government asked the over 30 landowners about widening the foot path to a road to Limestone Bay, that the only one, who we now know presently objected to the widening, is Mr. John A Gumbs, who I am told is or was a Methodist minister. To imagine that this minister accepted the love of over 25 land owners to widen the public path, from the Valley main road a distance of about some 3600 feet to his property at Little Bay, from about 4 feet to 13 feet (which was given freely without asking for compensation) so that he and others can drive to his land and beyond, but instead to have Mr. Gumbs in exchange not to give 1 inch of his land to widen the public footpath to Limestone Bay, but instead have the Privy Council to err in their decision and give to him the 4 feet public foot path, to be included to his lands.

5) That over 5 Landowners to the North of Mr. John Gumbs land, in the early 1980s had also given about 1800 feet of their lands freely without compensation to widen the public footpath from 4 feet to about 10 feet, so that they and the public can have vehicular access freely to Limestone Bay. The only land owner who have not given 1 inch of his land for such a noble and worthy cause is Mr. John A Gumbs as we can see of his action of 14th July 2009.

6) That the portion of land the public path/road would have affected for Mr. Gumbs would have measured approximately 240 feet. So to imagine where various land owners have sacrificed 3600 feet of road to improve John A .Gumbs property, John A Gumbs have prevented the land owners and the public access and enjoyment of about 1800 feet of road given by the lands owners to the north of him, for access to the surrounding area and the Limestone Bay beach.
It can be concluded that the Privy Council wants us to believe that a 4 feet, footpath used for over 150 years by many Anguillans, and have been shown to be in existence during the Cadastral Project of 1974 to 1975, no longer exist just because they have decided so. It is these types of decisions, that people have become disenfranchised with the legal and court system that exist today. To see that a court can remove the rights of a people that has been established way long (at least 120 years) before the Land Adjudication and Cadastral project of 1974 to 1975. We as a people must come to the realization that what are our public rights today may not be our public rights tomorrow thus our properties and our beaches are under threat, all it will take is a John A Gumbs or another John A Gumbs type of person to do what is right for self and not for country.

This matter and decision will affect both church and state, and I and many others hope that Rev. Mr. John A. Gumbs will look into his heart of hearts and make the sacrifice, as all other land owners along that road has done so freely, that is to re-open the public path to about 13 feet as all the landowners before his property have done or to return the 4 feet public foot path to what the public had been enjoying freely for at least the last 150 years. For it is my belief that God made us a people to build each other up and not to tear each other down, by living for self. Therefore Mr. John A. Gumbs has the power to correct and rewrite the wrong of the Privy Council decision.

- Name withheld at writer's request

| Printer-friendly page | Send this article to a friend |

World News