The Chinese Landing Village Council has objected to the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission’s decision to withdraw from mediation between the Council and miner Wayne Vieira, arguing that recent developments have instead heightened the need for the parties to resolve their differences through dialogue.
The dispute centres on Chinese Landing and Vieira, with the GGMC informing Toshao Nikita Miller in a letter dated September 7 that it was withdrawing its mediation effort.
Commissioner Newell Dennison said the decision followed developments and circumstances affecting both sides which, in the GGMC’s view, had overtaken the initiative for a mediated solution. “I regret that the initiative for a mediated solution between the parties appears to have been overtaken by developments and circumstances affecting both sides,” Dennison wrote.
He subsequently advised Miller that the GGMC was withdrawing the mediation effort which it had initiated pursuant to an initiative by the Ministry of Natural Resources following the National Toshaos Council Conference.
The Commission further told the Toshao that the Village Council remained free to pursue whatever legal avenues it considered appropriate in addressing the matter involving Chinese Landing and Vieira.
But in its response to Dennison, also dated September 7, the Chinese Landing Village Council said it was disappointed by the GGMC’s decision and questioned why the mediation process was being abandoned at this stage.
The Council argued that the developments cited by the GGMC were not unforeseeable circumstances affecting both parties but were instead linked to Vieira’s unilateral decision to move equipment into the village’s lands while the mediation process was still pending.
According to the Council, those developments should have prompted the GGMC to intensify its efforts to facilitate a settlement rather than withdraw from the process. “To us, this seems like the time for GGMC to redouble its efforts ensure a fair discussion with Mr. Vieira,” the Council said.
The Council also questioned the GGMC’s authority to withdraw from the mediation in circumstances where neither of the parties had, according to the Council, decided to terminate the process. “Since the parties to the mediation are the Village Council and Mr. Vieira, it is not clear to us what authority GGMC has to withdraw the mediation in the absence of a decision by one of the parties to end the mediation,” the Council stated. It is therefore seeking clarification from Dennison on whether Vieira had indicated that he wanted to withdraw from the mediation.
The Village Council made clear that it remains willing to pursue mediation. It explained that it had declined an invitation to travel to Georgetown for a meeting at the end of August because it could not leave the village while Vieira was actively moving mining equipment into the community’s lands.
The Council stressed that its decision not to attend the proposed meeting should not be interpreted as a rejection of mediation. Rather, it said, it had asked Vieira to refrain from actions that could be interpreted as exerting undue pressure on the village.
The Council further disclosed that it had proposed an agreement that would allow Vieira to work on the disputed blocks while the case between the parties remains pending. It said mediation appeared to be a fair way of negotiating such an agreement and reaching terms acceptable to both sides.
The Council is therefore maintaining that mediation remains the preferred avenue for resolving the dispute, despite the GGMC’s decision to withdraw from the process.
Discussion