Small Miner Struggles to Stop Illegal Mining of Disputed Mining Land in Puruni, Region 7

15th of March, 2025. Guyana, South America. GSA News. Guyana News.

A Guyanese small miner has reached out to this publication to voice his distress after facing repeated and ongoing struggles removing illegal miners from disputed mining land that the court rules belongs to his family. According to Mr. Marvis Halliman, the court ruled on May 20, 2024, that the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) aught to grant the mining permit for the disputed land to his maternal uncle, Wallace Edgard Daniels. Screenshots of the court documents are attached at the end of this article.

Based on the documents provided, the rightful owner of the disputed mining land is Wallace Edgar Daniels. The decision/judgment section in the document clearly states that the Commissioner of the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission ought to grant and approve the application of Mr. Wallace Edgar Daniels for the Prospecting Permits Medium Scale (PPMS) for the blocks applied for by him. The evidence and findings presented in the document support this conclusion, indicating that Mr. Daniels’ application was made in accordance with the regulations and that there were no legal challenges or objections to his application at the time it was made.

Based on the information provided in the documents, Alphonso has no rights over the disputed mining land. The judgment clearly states that there was no evidence presented to show that Alphonso had any legal claim or application related to the blocks in question. Specifically:

• Alphonso never made an application for a prospecting permit of the disputed land.
• River claims applied for by Alphonso in 2009 cannot by existing regulations include 300 feet inland.

Since Alphonso did not follow the proper legal procedures to apply for or obtain any rights over the land, and since Wallace Edgar Daniels’ application was found to be valid and in compliance with the regulations, Alphonso has no legal standing or rights regarding the disputed mining blocks. The court’s decision affirms that the rights to the land belong exclusively to Wallace Edgar Daniels and orders the GGMC to grant his mining permit accordingly for the said disputed land.

Mr. Marvis Halliman explained to this publication that he has faced extreme challenges trying to evict employees of Mr. Ronaldo Alphonso, who is the President of the Guyana Gold and Diamond Mining Association, from illegal mining his land. He submitted videos of these confrontations which includes at least one instance where law enforcement was summoned to remove him from the land which the court ruled belongs to this Uncle. Mr. Halliman also claimed that he was assaulted by a security personnel hired by Mr. Alphonso while trying to stop illegal mining on the said land. Mr. Halliman further alleges that Mr. Alphonso told him to remove his social media posts and issue an apology or he will “see what will happen in a month.”

Advice from International Legal Advisor

Mr. Marvis Halliman and his family contracted the services of an international legal advisor, who, upon reviewing the documents and assessing the situation, advised that they should sue for damages if the GGMC continues to refuse to issue the mining permit, and if illegal mining continues to take place on their mining land. The legal expert advised as follows:

If Alphonso were to mine for gold and other precious metals on the disputed land without legal authorization, he could face several serious consequences, both civil and criminal in nature. These may include:

1. Criminal Charges:

• Trespassing: Since the land has been legally awarded to Wallace Edgar Daniels, any unauthorized mining activity by Alphonso would constitute trespassing. Trespassing is a criminal offense and can result in fines or imprisonment, depending on the severity of the violation.
• Illegal Mining: Mining without a valid permit or license is illegal under Guyana’s mining laws. Alphonso could be charged with illegal mining activities, which are typically penalized with significant fines and/or imprisonment.
• Theft of Natural Resources: Extracting minerals from land that does not belong to him could also be considered theft of natural resources, which is a serious criminal offense.

2. Civil Liability:

• Damages: Wallace Edgar Daniels, as the rightful owner of the mining rights, could sue Alphonso for damages. This could include compensation for any profits Alphonso made from the illegal mining, as well as damages for any environmental harm or other losses caused by the unauthorized mining activities.
• Injunctions: Daniels could seek an injunction to stop Alphonso from continuing his illegal mining operations. If Alphonso violates the injunction, he could face additional penalties, including contempt of court charges, which may result in fines or imprisonment.

3. Environmental Penalties:

• Environmental Violations: Mining activities often have significant environmental impacts. If Alphonso’s actions result in environmental damage, such as deforestation, water pollution, or soil degradation, he could face additional penalties under environmental protection laws. These could include fines, restoration orders (to repair the environmental damage), or even criminal charges if the violations are severe enough.

4. Reputational Damage:

• Engaging in illegal mining activities could tarnish Alphonso’s reputation within the community and the mining industry. This could affect his ability to obtain future mining permits or do business with others in the industry.

5. Seizure of Equipment and Assets:

• Any equipment, machinery, or assets used in the illegal mining operation could be seized by the authorities. The government may confiscate these items as part of the enforcement action against illegal mining.

6. Revocation of Future Rights:

• If Alphonso holds any other mining permits or licenses elsewhere, his illegal activities on this disputed land could lead to the revocation of those permits or disqualification from obtaining future mining rights.

In Summary:

Alphonso would be engaging in a high-risk activity with no legal basis if he were to mine on the disputed land. Given that Wallace Edgar Daniels has been confirmed as the rightful owner of the mining rights, Alphonso would face severe legal, financial, and possibly criminal consequences if he proceeds with unauthorized mining. It would be in Alphonso’s best interest to respect the legal decision and avoid any activities that could lead to these negative outcomes.

How this Case Could Negatively Affect Guyana’s Corruption Perception Index

The situation described—where the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC), a government body, appears to favor Alphonso, who is the President of another government-affiliated entity (the Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association)—raises serious concerns about potential corruption, abuse of power, and lack of transparency in the country’s governance. This type of behavior could significantly impact Guyana’s corruption perception index (CPI) and attract negative attention from international bodies that monitor corruption globally.

Here’s how this scenario could cause Guyana’s corruption index to rise and how international organizations might flag the country as being high in corruption:

1. Perception of Favoritism and Lack of Impartiality

• Issue: If GGMC is perceived to be favoring Alphonso despite a court order granting the mining rights to Wallace Edgar Daniels, it suggests that government institutions are not operating impartially. Instead, they may be influenced by personal or political connections, which undermines public trust in governance.
• Impact on Corruption Index: Favoritism and nepotism are key indicators of corruption. When government bodies fail to act in accordance with the law or court rulings, it signals systemic corruption. Transparency International and similar organizations use such cases as evidence of weak rule of law and institutional bias, which would negatively affect Guyana’s CPI score.
• International Flagging: International bodies like the United Nations (UN), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank closely monitor governance and rule of law. A case like this could lead to investigations into whether there is systemic corruption within GGMC or other government agencies, potentially resulting in sanctions, reduced aid, or unfavorable trade conditions.

2. Erosion of Rule of Law

• Issue: The refusal to issue a license to the rightful owner (Wallace Edgar Daniels) despite a court ruling indicates a breakdown in the enforcement of legal decisions. This undermines the rule of law, which is a cornerstone of good governance.
• Impact on Corruption Index: Countries with weak enforcement of laws and court orders often rank poorly on corruption indices. The failure to respect judicial rulings is seen as a sign of institutional decay and corruption, leading to a lower CPI score for Guyana.
• International Flagging: Organizations like the IMF and World Bank assess rule of law as part of their evaluations for financial assistance or investment. If Guyana is seen as a country where courts cannot enforce their decisions due to interference by government bodies, these organizations may downgrade Guyana’s governance ratings, making it harder for the country to secure loans or attract foreign direct investment (FDI).

3. Conflict of Interest

• Issue: Alphonso’s dual role as the President of the Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association and someone involved in the dispute over mining rights creates a clear conflict of interest. His position in a government-affiliated body gives him undue influence over the mining sector, which could be used to manipulate decisions in his favor.
• Impact on Corruption Index: Conflicts of interest are a major red flag for corruption. When individuals in positions of power exploit their roles for personal gain, it erodes public confidence in the fairness of government institutions. This would likely result in a higher corruption perception index for Guyana.
• International Flagging: Global anti-corruption watchdogs like Transparency International actively track conflicts of interest in government bodies. Cases like this could prompt them to highlight Guyana as a country where public officials misuse their positions for private benefit, further tarnishing its reputation.

4. Lack of Transparency in Licensing Processes

• Issue: The delay or refusal by GGMC to issue licenses in accordance with the court’s decision raises questions about transparency in the licensing process. If decisions about mining permits are made arbitrarily or based on favoritism rather than merit, it suggests a lack of accountability and transparency.
• Impact on Corruption Index: Transparency is a critical factor in reducing corruption. Countries with opaque processes for awarding contracts or licenses tend to have higher corruption perceptions. Guyana’s CPI score would likely suffer if this case is seen as an example of systemic opacity in the mining sector.
• International Flagging: International organizations like the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) focus on ensuring transparency in resource-rich countries. If GGMC’s actions are perceived as non-transparent, Guyana could face scrutiny from EITI, potentially losing its status as a compliant country. This would damage its international reputation and deter ethical investors.

5. Impact on Foreign Investment and Aid

• Issue: Corruption scandals involving government bodies can deter foreign investors and development partners. Investors seek stable, transparent environments where legal decisions are respected and enforced. Similarly, donor countries and organizations prioritize funding for nations with strong governance structures.
• Impact on Corruption Index: A rise in perceived corruption often correlates with a decline in investor confidence and aid flows. This economic fallout reinforces the perception of a corrupt environment, creating a vicious cycle that further harms Guyana’s CPI ranking.
• International Flagging: Multilateral organizations like the IMF, World Bank, and regional bodies like the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) may impose stricter conditions on Guyana’s access to loans or grants. They might also require anti-corruption reforms as a precondition for continued support.

6. Reputation Risks in the Mining Sector

• Issue: The mining sector is particularly prone to corruption due to the high value of resources and the potential for illicit gains. If Guyana’s GGMC is seen as complicit in favoring politically connected individuals like Alphonso, it could harm the country’s reputation as a responsible steward of its natural resources.
• Impact on Corruption Index: Resource-rich countries with poor governance in the extractive industries often rank poorly on corruption indices. This case could serve as evidence of mismanagement and corruption in Guyana’s mining sector.
• International Flagging: Groups like the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI) and Publish What You Pay (PWYP) campaign actively monitor corruption in the extractive industries. If Guyana fails to address this issue, it could be flagged as a high-risk jurisdiction, impacting its ability to attract ethical investors and participate in global initiatives aimed at promoting sustainable resource management.

7. How International Bodies Can Act

If this case gains international attention, the following actions could be taken:

• Transparency International: Could include Guyana in reports highlighting specific instances of corruption, leading to a drop in its CPI ranking.
• IMF/World Bank: Could demand anti-corruption reforms as part of any future financial assistance packages.
• EITI: Could place Guyana under review or suspend its membership if GGMC’s actions are deemed inconsistent with EITI standards.
• Sanctions or Trade Restrictions: Countries or blocs like the European Union (EU) could impose restrictions on trade or investment with Guyana if systemic corruption is confirmed.
• Reputational Damage: Negative media coverage and reports from NGOs could harm Guyana’s standing in the international community, deterring ethical businesses and investors.

In Summary

The refusal of GGMC to honor the court’s decision in favor of Wallace Edgar Daniels, coupled with apparent favoritism toward Alphonso, highlights significant governance issues that could severely damage Guyana’s reputation. Such actions increase the likelihood of a higher corruption perception index and attract scrutiny from international bodies focused on transparency, accountability, and good governance. To mitigate these risks, Guyana must ensure that its institutions act impartially, enforce court rulings, and adhere to transparent processes in the allocation of mining rights. Failure to do so could result in long-term economic and diplomatic consequences.

The Guyana, South America Publication strongly urges the Attorney General of Guyana to investigate this case and have it resolved favorably, impartially, and in accordance with the rule of law.