ABSTRACT
One must keep in the forefront of one’s mind that our Constitution does not, neither in Art 40 nor 142, speak of compulsory acquisition or deprivation of property for public purposes. It is important to bear this in mind for this reason pivotal to the reasoning of my brethren in the instant appeal is the argumentation in each judgment that ‘public purpose’ is an essential prerequisite for the right of the State to acquire private property, that is to say, the property must have been taken for some public purpose. With all due respect, our Constitution simply does not say so, and it seems to me, with deep respect, to be something of a confusion of thought to engraft upon our Constitution the essential prerequisite of the American concept of Eminent Domain in justification of the conduct of the Government of Guyana in this matter. Our Constitution is the supreme law of the country. It does not exempt the Government from the constraints imposed by the Constitution, by taking property for public purposes. However public the purpose, however noble the purpose, the Governmentthe executive-simply cannot take private property under the guise that it is being taken for public purposes.
