Administration of Crown Leases under scrutiny

Serious concerns have been raised by the Public Accounts Committee on the administration of Crown Leases in the country alleging collusion between the Director of Lands and the lease holders.

After scrutinizing the Auditor Generals 2006 report on the Economic Services Sector, the Committee stated that while there were several anomalies within the Department of Lands and Surveys, the worst breaches were those recorded by residential Crown Land Lessees who openly flouted the laxity in the system and failed to obtain approval of the Director Lands on development on the property.

The Committee notes that Crown lease holders were sub-letting the land, varying the use of the residential lease for commercial and industrial lease, constructing additional buildings and extensions, encroaching on the government road reserves illegally and refusing to pay the re-assessed rates amongst others.

In its report, the Committee said the very low rent was charged on Crown leases ranging from 10 cents to $10 per year, mainly for educational and religious purposes which had not been adjusted and reviewed to meet the current market rates.

The Committee said the Department was not aware of the breaches of lease conditions by the lessee's because of the poor monitoring and control system due to shortage of resources and personnel.

It is also noted that there was variance in records of Crown Leases maintained by the department through the two systems in use which showed that the Land System recorded 20,252 leases and the Land Administration System recorded 16,155 leases, leaving a variance of 4,097 leases.

The Public Accounts Committee stated that the inconsistent and selective approach adopted by the Department when dealing with lessees strongly suggested collusion between the director of Lands and the lease holders.

The Committee said the approval of mortgages by the Director of lands was done without the mandatory re-assessment of the lands concerned and that this caused substantial loss of revenue for the government.