-says 2016 by-laws remain in force, threatens court action
The Linden Mayor and Town Council yesterday challenged an order by Local Government Minister Priya Manickchand for the immediate cessation of toll collection along the Kara Kara Public Road, saying that the directive ignored gazetted by-laws and further threatened the municipality’s already weakened finances.
In a letter dated September 1 and addressed to Town Clerk Lennox Gasper and seen by this publication, Manickchand said she had not authorised the imposition or collection of tolls at Kara Kara or anywhere else in Linden.
She maintained that no by-law or order authorising the charges had been issued and published by a minister responsible for local government.
“Accordingly, the imposition and collection of a toll/charges by the Linden Mayor and Town Council, whether directly or through its servants and/or agents, is null, void and unlawful,” Manickchand wrote.
The council was ordered to “cease and desist immediately” from imposing or collecting the charges. Manickchand warned that failure to comply could result in legal proceedings against the municipality and those responsible for collecting the tolls.
Copies of the letter were sent to Linden Mayor Dominique Blair and another official.
Hours later, the council rejected the minister’s position as “legally questionable” and accused the central government of attempting to undermine local democracy and financially strangle the municipality.
It did not expressly say whether collection would continue, but called on Manickchand to suspend her directive pending consultations and clarification of the legal position.
At the centre of the dispute are the Linden Town Council (Toll) By-Laws 2016, which the council said were approved by the government of the day and published in the Official Gazette on August 20, 2016.
Those by-laws established charges for various categories of vehicles and designated the proceeds as revenue belonging to the municipality, the council said.
“The minister cannot simply disregard this history by asserting that no legal instrument existed,” the council’s statement said.
It called on the government to identify any legislation, order or other instrument which repealed, revoked or superseded the 2016 by-laws.
The council also questioned Manickchand’s description of the route as the Kara Kara “Public Road”, asking when and by what legal instrument it acquired that status and what became of the municipality’s pre-existing rights and revenue arrangements.
It demanded that the minister provide the legal basis for her directive and explain whether the 2016 by-laws remain in force.
The council said it was prepared to comply with the law but would not accept what it described as unsupported assertions about the limits of its authority. It warned that it would take all necessary steps, including court action, to defend its statutory and constitutional position.
Long-running
The dispute is the latest in a long-running battle between central government and the Linden municipality over the Kara Kara toll.
Stabroek News had reported in 2013 that the then PPP/C government halted the collection after receiving legal advice that the existing order was invalid because it had not been gazetted. Then Local Government Minister Norman Whittaker warned that anyone collecting the charges could face prosecution for extortion.
The then Interim Management Committee disputed that position, saying the toll had operated from 1997 and was one of the municipality’s principal sources of income. At the time, the council had only $400,000 in its coffers against an October wage bill of $3.4 million.
Stabroek News subsequently reported that the elected council approved new by-laws in June 2016 as part of the process of placing the toll collection on a clear legal footing. The toll was intended primarily to collect revenue from vehicles transporting timber and other resources through Linden.
The newspaper reported that before the 2013 closure, the facility generated approximately $3.5 million monthly. The council expected the revised rates to produce more revenue for wages, garbage collection and other municipal services.
Following public consultations, the municipality agreed that Linden-registered businesses would pay 25% of the revised tolls, while vehicles operated by businesses from outside the town would pay the full rates.
The toll booth was formally reopened in November 2016. Then mayor Carwyn Holland said the revenue would assist the municipality but would cover only a fraction of its expenses.
The council yesterday cited this history in support of its contention that Manickchand’s declaration that no authorising by-law existed was incorrect.
It also linked the latest directive to the removal last year of the toll on the Mackenzie-Wismar Bridge, which is separate from the Kara Kara toll.
Kiskadee Watch had reported that the bridge became toll-free on August 1, 2025, following a government decision announced earlier that year.
Before its removal, the bridge toll contributed approximately $6 million monthly—or more than $70 million annually—to the municipality. The council had warned in March 2025 that it had not been consulted and that no replacement financing arrangement had been presented.
Kiskadee Watch also reported that the council and opposition representatives had called for a dedicated subvention to replace the lost revenue, saying the money had supported essential municipal services.
The council yesterday said the loss of the Mackenzie-Wismar Bridge revenue had contributed significantly to its difficulty in paying salaries and meeting other obligations.
It argued that Manickchand’s directive now placed another income stream at risk without identifying an alternative source of financing.
“Central government cannot remove municipal revenue while simultaneously expecting the council to continue providing services efficiently,” the statement said.
The municipality called for urgent talks with the government on replacement revenue, its deteriorating financial position and the losses arising from the abolition of the bridge toll.
It invoked Articles 75 and 77A of the Constitution, which address the autonomy of local democratic organs and the establishment of objective criteria for allocating resources and enabling those bodies to raise funds.
The council argued that an elected municipality could not be genuinely autonomous if central government repeatedly removed its independent sources of revenue while making replacement funding dependent on ministerial discretion.
It demanded a “sustainable and legally guaranteed” replacement revenue mechanism and an objective framework for municipal financing.
“If central government removes a municipality’s revenue, it must provide a lawful, adequate and sustainable replacement,” the statement said. “Government cannot dismantle the revenue base of an elected municipality and then expect that municipality to continue functioning as though nothing has changed.”
Discussion