Cartoon of the Day: The Gate Stays Open, but Who Owns Jamaica’s Natural Treasures?

An interim court ruling at Little Dunn’s River has reopened a familiar national question: when a place has been enjoyed by generations of Jamaicans, how far should ownership extend into the public’s right to enter?

OCHO RIOS, Jamaica, 11 October 2026 — There is something unmistakably Jamaican about a trip to the river. The cool water, the slippery stones, the family gathering on a Sunday afternoon and the familiar instruction to mind where you put your foot. Yet at Little Dunn’s River in St Ann, a place long associated with simple public recreation has become the subject of a much larger legal argument.

On 1 October 2026, the St Ann’s Bay Parish Court granted an interim injunction preventing the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) from obstructing public access to Little Dunn’s River and the traditional pathways leading to its beach, river and waterfalls. The protection remains in place while the court considers a lawsuit filed in 2023.

Our Cartoon of the Day imagines the dispute as a confrontation between a determined judge, celebrating members of the public and officials standing behind a heavily chained gate marked Closed. It is an exaggerated scene, but its central message is straightforward: the question of access has reached the courts, and the gate cannot simply be closed while the existing order remains in force.

A small river carrying a big argument

Little Dunn’s River should not be confused with the famous Dunn’s River Falls nearby. It is a much smaller coastal attraction, reached by a steep descent, rather than the vast terraced waterfall represented in our cartoon.

That difference matters. Little Dunn’s River is not simply another major tourism attraction. Its importance lies partly in the everyday experiences of residents who have traditionally used it for bathing, recreation, fishing and informal gatherings.

The legal action was brought by the Jamaica Beach Birthright Environmental Movement (JaBBEM) and ten individuals who argue that longstanding public use established rights that should be protected. They are seeking declarations recognising continued access, including for recreational and certain commercial activities.

The corporation, however, maintains that customary recreational use does not automatically authorise unregulated vending, unauthorised structures or unrestricted commercial operations on property it owns.

That distinction is at the heart of the disagreement.

Ownership, access and responsibility

The court’s interim ruling does not determine who ultimately wins the lawsuit. Nor does it transfer ownership of the property or settle every question about commercial activity.

What it does is protect public access while the legal issues are considered.

In a statement issued on 2 October, the UDC confirmed that it would comply with the order. At the same time, the corporation emphasised that making land accessible is not the same as operating a managed recreational facility seven days a week.

Security, sanitation, maintenance, lifeguard provision and potential liability are among the concerns identified by the corporation. It has also warned that unauthorised persons cannot charge entry fees on its behalf. Its legal representatives have indicated their intention to challenge the injunction.

These are practical considerations that deserve attention. A river may be naturally beautiful, but keeping a recreational site safe requires resources and planning.

The more difficult question is whether appropriate management can be achieved without unnecessarily restricting the access that communities consider part of their heritage.

The bigger question for Jamaica

Beyond St Ann, the dispute raises issues concerning land ownership, customary use, tourism development and the relationship between state institutions and the communities around them.

Jamaica’s coastline contains some of the country’s most desirable property, and public access can become contentious when established local practices meet formal land management, investment or development proposals.

Not every privately or publicly owned coastal property carries the same legal rights of access. Nor does a history of public enjoyment necessarily establish an unlimited legal entitlement. Those questions depend on the relevant law, evidence and circumstances.

Nevertheless, Little Dunn’s River demonstrates why access routes, community expectations and the management of natural attractions should be considered carefully before disagreements reach the courtroom.

The case is scheduled to return to court on 30 November 2026. Until a further order or final determination changes the position, the interim injunction provides the governing protection for access.

There is, perhaps, a distinctly Jamaican irony in needing a court order to settle whether people may continue enjoying a little river they have visited for years.

Our cartoon places the judge between the public and a chained gate, with one hand raised towards those seeking to close it. In reality, the law must do more than choose between an open gate and a locked one. It must establish which rights exist, how they may be exercised and who bears responsibility for the site.

For now, the gate remains open under the court’s protection. Whether that access becomes a permanent legal entitlement is a question still awaiting trial.