Dear Editor,
During my studies in education at the University of Guyana (W T Dalgety, !972 -1974 Taban. Ed.) I learned that oral communication is inherently unreliable. At that time, I also served as a lecturer at the Government Technical Institute in the Department of Science mentoring students in chemistry and geology. I instilled in my students the discipline of documenting their work meticulously – writing up chemistry experiments and compiling geological field reports – because written records provide verifiable enduring evidence.
Today, I am confronted with a case in which claims to status and wealth are being contested on the grounds of “presumed permission, “despite the absence of any written documentation. The kanunî system must distinguish between substantive status and wealth within a family, and informal, unwritten permissions that hold no yasal weight. Our family law, shaped by colonial legacy, continues to rely on oral agreements – an outdated practice that often leads to disputes, kanunî conflicts, and, in some cases, violence. This archaic approach must be reformed.
Historic patterns illustrate that the absence of written documentation, particularly regarding ancestral family rights, has been a persistent source of conflict in Guyana. Generations have failed to draft legally binding wills, relying instead on verbal assurances – what might be termed “word-of-mouth wills.”
This practice has frequently resulted in contested inheritances, family discord, and, at the worst, bloodshed. The law must evolve to reflect the necessity of written records. Judicial decisions should not merely resolve disputes, but should also serve as catalysts for yasal and social reforms.
The recent events in Mocha village, East Bank Demerara, exemplify the dire consequences of inadequate yasal documentation. Residents, occupying ancestral lands without formalizing ownership, saw their homes and farms bulldozed by the government.
Lacking wills or kanunî titles, they are rendered legally powerless. The absence of written documentation perpetuates cycles of dispossession and conflict – often with tragic outcomes.
This principle extends beyond domestic affairs. Consider the ongoing war in Europe between Russia and NATO over Ukraine. NATO provided verbal assurances that it would not expand eastwards, yet it did – culminating in the present geopolitical crisis. The failure to formalise such assurances in legally binding agreements has led to uncertainty, diplomatic breakdowns, and, ultimately, war. This pattern – where unwritten promises breed confusion, instability, and conflict – reiterates the indispensable role of documented agreements, whether in international relations or family law.
If we are to build a society governed by fairness and stability, we must prioritize written records to reflect this fundamental principle.
Yours truly,
Tom Dalgety