Isat Buchanan Under Fire Over ‘Chop Di Line’ Remarks Following Coopers Pen Demolition

Jamaica Live News Desk– | Aug 12, 2026

KINGSTON, Jamaica — Opposition Spokesperson on Youth and Human Rights and East Portland Member of Parliament Isat Buchanan is facing criticism over remarks circulating on social media in which he appears to encourage Jamaicans who were not affected by the demolition of homes in Coopers Pen, Trelawny, to present themselves as victims in order to benefit from Government assistance.

The controversy comes amid public outrage over Tuesday’s pre-dawn demolition in Coopers Pen, where approximately 20 houses were destroyed, leaving scores of residents displaced. Reports indicate that the demolition was carried out by a private landowner or developer following a longstanding court dispute, and not by the Government or the Trelawny Municipal Corporation.

According to the Ministry of Labour and Social Security’s preliminary assessment, approximately 40 families were affected. Government agencies, including the Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management (ODPEM), have since moved into the community to provide humanitarian assistance, including food, water, toiletries, tents and other emergency supplies.

Buchanan Tells Jamaicans to ‘Chop Di Line’

In a voice note circulating in the public domain and attributed to Buchanan, the attorney-at-law allegedly urged people who were not affected by the demolition to “chop di line” on the authorities.

“Chop di line” is Jamaican street slang commonly associated with scamming or fraud.

Buchanan allegedly went further, suggesting that people could break a bed foot and take it to the demolition site as supposed evidence that they had lost property, thereby positioning themselves to benefit from compensation or taxpayer-funded assistance.

The remarks, if authentic and accurately represented in their full context, raise serious questions given Buchanan’s position as a sitting parliamentarian, attorney-at-law and Opposition spokesman with responsibility for human rights.

They also stand in stark contrast to Buchanan’s more formal public response to the demolition.

On Wednesday, Buchanan demanded answers about the operation and argued that, irrespective of the legal status of the land, residents were entitled to be treated with dignity. He also questioned whether affected residents would be compensated for belongings destroyed during the operation.

Buchanan has argued that residents were given insufficient opportunity to protect their possessions and has called for emergency housing and welfare intervention for displaced families.

However, his subsequent social-media remarks have shifted attention from the humanitarian questions surrounding the demolition to whether a Member of Parliament was effectively encouraging people to make false claims against the State.

From Human Rights Advocacy to a ‘Dialectic’

Buchanan reportedly characterised his controversial social-media commentary as a “dialectic”, while suggesting that the Holness administration would ultimately have to provide housing assistance to displaced residents.

But telling people who suffered no loss to present themselves as victims would be an entirely different proposition from demanding Government assistance for genuine victims.

Any attempt by unaffected individuals to knowingly misrepresent themselves in order to obtain taxpayer-funded benefits could potentially raise questions of fraud and dishonesty.

The controversy is particularly striking given Buchanan’s own history with the criminal justice system.

Buchanan has two previous drug-related convictions. He was convicted in Jamaica in 1997 for possession of, dealing in, and taking steps to export cocaine. He was subsequently convicted in the United States in 2000 for conspiracy to import cocaine and received a 10-year prison sentence.

Buchanan has maintained his innocence regarding his past cases and, after his release, rebuilt his life, studied law and became a prominent criminal defence attorney. He was called to the Jamaican Bar in 2017.

His rehabilitation has frequently been defended by the People’s National Party, while political opponents have repeatedly used his criminal history to question his suitability for public office.

The latest controversy, however, is not about whether a person with past convictions deserves rehabilitation. The immediate issue is whether a sitting lawmaker and attorney should be encouraging conduct that could amount to deceiving the Government and, ultimately, Jamaican taxpayers.

Government Did Not Carry Out Demolition

The political rhetoric surrounding Coopers Pen has also created confusion over who actually demolished the houses.

Mayor of Falmouth Collen Gager and the Trelawny Municipal Corporation have publicly distanced the local authority from the operation. Reports indicate that the demolition arose from a private land dispute and was executed following court proceedings.

The dispute itself is far from new.

Court records show that disputes involving privately owned land in the Orange Grove/Coopers Pen area and informal settlers stretch back well over a decade. In proceedings filed in 2012, court documents stated that more than 100 families had occupied approximately nine acres of privately owned land and that efforts had been made to prevent demolition while the Government explored compulsory acquisition.

Residents affected by Tuesday’s demolition have maintained that they have longstanding claims to the property, while reports describe the matter as the culmination of years of legal wrangling.

Fitz-Henley Condemns Remarks

The remarks attributed to Buchanan have drawn condemnation from Government representatives, including Senator Abka Fitz-Henley, who has accused the Opposition spokesman of encouraging people who were not affected by the demolition to pretend that they suffered losses in order to benefit from taxpayer-funded assistance.

The criticism goes directly to the responsibility of elected officials to protect public resources.

There is a legitimate and urgent debate to be had about what happened in Coopers Pen: whether sufficient notice was given, whether residents were treated humanely, what happened to their possessions, the role of the police, the legal history of the property and what should now happen to families who have suddenly found themselves homeless.

Those questions should not be diminished.

But there is an equally legitimate question for Buchanan to answer: Did a sitting Member of Parliament and attorney-at-law really encourage Jamaicans who suffered no loss to “chop di line” and make claims against the Government?

If the circulating recording is authentic, Buchanan may need to explain precisely what he meant — because advocating for genuine victims is one thing; encouraging people to manufacture losses and raid the public purse is something else entirely.

Jamaica Live will continue to follow developments surrounding the Coopers Pen demolition and the political fallout from Buchanan’s remarks.