You can now listen to Antigua News articles!
Satellite image of Barbuda
By Kieron Murdoch | Opinion Contributor
Much has been said about the recent debacle in Barbuda surrounding an urban development project at a site which has alternately been called Louie Hill and Katel Hill, and which has become a source of controversy. It has been approved by the government but is opposed by the Barbuda Council. Both accuse each other of lying over the Council’s awareness of the project. It is another spat in a long and seemingly unending series of disagreements surrounding land use, administration and sale in Barbuda.
Here again, we have divergence along the traditional lines. We have the central government asserting its authority to govern Barbuda. And we have the Barbuda Council protesting that authority. Of course, it is worth noting that while there is a Labour Government in St. John’s, the Council in Codrington is led by the opposition Barbuda Peoples Movement (BPM).
The government stated last week that the Council allegedly used trucks to block work taking place at the development site near Codrington, adding that the trucks were later removed after an intervention. Days later, over the weekend, armed police arrived in tactical gear and blocked access to the site, sparking a stand-off with a number of residents.
It has been reported that the development itself is a housing project with as many as 200 homes to be built. It isnot clear to us whether it is a project being undertaken wholly by the government via the National Hosuing and Urban Renewal Company or whether it is being undertaken by a private developer. The impression has been given that the housing is intended to be sold to Barbuda residents.
Interestingly, some have argued that the same site was earmarked for a similar project before the current Labour administration approved the current development, and have therefore accused the Council of being duplicitoous. We have not been able to verify if this is the case.
Since taking office, the administration of Gaston Browne has sought to regularise the system of land tenure in Barbuda, upending the Barbudan custom of communal land use. This happened through the repeal of the Barbuda Land Act 2007, and the introductions of the the Crown Lands (Regulation) (Amendment) Act 2018, the Barbuda (Amendment) Act 2018, and the Registered Land (Amendment) Act 2023.
The repeal of the Barbuda Land Act 2007 removed a regime introduced under the Spencer administration that gave legal effect to the tradition of communal land use. It was repealed by the Crown Lands (Regulation) (Amendment) Act 2018 which also allowed for the establishment of a Board to administer and manage Crown lands.
The Barbuda (Amendment) Act 2018 declared and reaffirmed that all lands in Barbuda were Crown lands and that residents were tenants of the Crown. It stated that “no person shall acquire the ownership of any piece or parcel of Crown land within Barbuda by prescription” meaning that occupying land for an extended period would not create a right to that land.
The Registered Land (Amendment) Act 2023 provided for the compulsory registration of Crown land and for the “proprietors” of Crown lands – persons who have been leasing or otherwise occupying such land – to come forward and register their occupancy of said plots. It also provided for revised procedures relating to the registration and subdivision of land. It also established a deadline by which proprietors of Crown land must register, stating, “No person, except the Crown, shall, after the expiration of [three years from the coming into force of the Act’s provisions], have any dealings with land that continues to be registered in the name of the Crown.”
The government’s stance on land in Barbuda was also bolstered by a February 2021 Privy Council judgement related to the Paradise Found project which found that the land on which the project was being developed was Crown land and that those arguing that it was land owned in common by Barbudans had no legal basis for such a stance.
Members of the Barbuda Council have often asserted that the Barbuda Local Government Act 1976 gives it the power to regulate matters regarding land but nothing in the Barbuda Local Government Act 1976 appears to vest any land in the Council, nor suggest that the Crown requires the Council’s approval or should act on the Council’s advice as regards the administration or disposal of Crown land.
The Barbuda Local Government Act of 1976 ensures that there is a local authority, that it is democratically elected, and that it has a range of powers to administer various sectors. But it does not restrict the powers of the executive branch as regards Crown land nor confer on the Council any powers regarding such land.
It was really the now repealed Barbuda Land Act of 2007 that gave the Council powers over land which was still acknowledged as Crown land in the Act. It stated that no land shall be sold or owned, that the Council was responsible for “administration” “development” and “the granting of leases” as regards land in Barbuda, and that the Council “may permit the Governrnent or another statutory body to use [land] on the terms agreed upon ín order that public services can be maintained and provided”.
There are many in Barbuda who view the changes that have taken place as regards land and its administration as a blight. At the same time, there residents of Barbuda who welcome a system where land is owned outright, as it gives them power and flexibility which they may not have previously had.
We think it is quite clear that the legal issue of the status of Barbuda land and which body exercises legitimate authority in that regard has been answered repeatedly. What we have remaining appear to be political and policy disputes regarding how the government ought to treat with land in Barbuda – a dispute fraught with mistrust, politics and bad faith. There persists a deep mistrust between some residents of Barbuda and the central government. Whether this mistrust applies specifically to the Labour government, or the central government generally (regardless of which party is in power) is difficult to say.
For many residents of Barbuda, this mistrust has much to do with the policies and assertiveness regarding land adopted by the government after the passage of Hurricane Irma in 2017 as well as the overall experience of the disaster, displacement, reconstruction and the politics and trauma that surrounded all of it. Then there’s the politics. The government and the Barbuda Council are often at odds with one another given that they are controlled by opposing parties that have a history of opposition to each other’s policies.
Then there’s the diverging views on how land in Barbuda ought to be developed. Some see promise in major developments often aimed at building high end real estate, luxury hotels and private wealthy accomodations. The Prime Minister himself has been quoted many times now after saying that his vision for Barbuda is akin to that of what Jumby Bay island is now. Others see this type of development as less desirable.
They worry that it alienates locals from (Crown) lands upon which they previously enjoyed public use and which hold cultural significance to everyday life, including beaches which become privatised by the curtailment of access; that it creates a class of super wealthy people whose wealth affords them a standard of living totally out of touch with the common man; and that in an open market, such developments gentrify communities through the gradual pressure placed on land prices to increase as a result of higher demand from developers seeking to replicate existing models.
Where the Crown holds land, including but not limited to land which communities have occupied, it is quite normal for those communities to concern themselves with how their government treats with and disposes of said land. Citizens of Antigua and Barbuda residing in Barbuda are entitled to be concerned with the actions of their government as regards Crown land. There is nothing odd about this.
What we find unfortunate is that there appears to be no concrete progress toward a common sense, transparent and reasonable strategy for how land in Barbuda is administered – one that seeks to take into account the economic imperatives of development while at the same time creating protections that prevent the abuse of land, prevent any future situation where the residents of the island are priced out of the ability to access land for various purposes, and seeks to find some common ground on the nature and scale of tourism developments that are approved by the government to take place.
The approach from the Labour government merely seems to be that the opposition in Barbuda will always oppose and the best thing to do is to ignore them and get on with it. Meanwhile, the approach from the BPM Council seems to be that the government should never be trusted and is always seeking to abuse the people of Barbuda or profit from the land. Is there really no common ground?
And is it Louis Hill or Katel Hill?
About the writer:
Kieron Murdoch is an opinion contributor at antigua.news. He worked as a journalist and later as a radio presenter in Antigua and Barbuda for eight years, covering politics and governance especially. If you have an opinion on the issues raised in this editorial and you would like to submit a response by email to be considered for publication, please email staff@antigua.news.
I didn’t see you comment on what was agreed at the Constitutional talks about lands in Barbuda