2012 Budget cut case adjourned for June 11

After listening to a series of short arguments from lawyers representing the government and political opposition today, Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang ruled that the hearings for the 2012 Budget cut case will begin on June 11 at 13:30hrs.

It was agreed that the Attorney General Anil Nandlall and his team of lawyers will file a statement of claim (the first or one of the first steps in engaging the justice system to resolve a dispute) within five days while a defence has to be filed by the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Leader of the Opposition. The Attorney General will thereafter file a reply.

The Opposition Leader is represented by Basil Williams and Deborah Backer while Khemraj Ramjattan is representing the Speaker of the National Assembly.

Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall

chatting with Opposition lawyers Basil Williams and Khemraj

Ramjattan (backing) prior to entering the chamber of the

Chief Justice. Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran is also in photo

An agreement made in September last that the affidavits which are on the court’s file will be treated as pleadings. Unfortunately the lawyers for the Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker denied the existence of such an agreement although the court record reflected evidence of that agreement.

In order to avoid further delay in the matter, and to avoid a confrontational approach the Chief Justice gave new directions, Mr Nandlall said.

The case will determine the legality and ability of the Political Opposition to amend or impose cuts to the budgetary allocations requested by the Finance Minister during the presentation of budgetary estimates in Parliament.

In 2012, the Political Opposition cut the allocations to several key sectors, resulting in the reduction of funds to key developmental programmes. Subsequently, the Finance Minister moved to the consolidated fund for monies to finance the operations and programmes, targeted by the political opposition.

Government has been guided by the Chief Justice’s preliminary ruling after it had moved to the court last year to defend its position that the opposition could not legally cut/amend the National Budget.

The House Speaker at the beginning of the Consideration of the 2013 estimates ruled that the opposition can amend the budget, despite the Chief Justice’s ruling.

This year the opposition repeated their actions, cutting about $31B from the 2013 National budget, effectively stymieing vital and transformative projects. Among the agencies and projects affected are the Guyana Power and Light (GPL) with $5.2B cut from its $10.2B allocation, Ministry of Public Works’ Entire Transport Programme’s allocation of $5.6B, Specialty Hospital Project’s $1.2B and $19B of the Low Carbon Development Programme’s $20B allocation. The Government Information Agency (GINA) and the National Communications Network (NCN) also had their allocations cut.

In the case of the LCDS, the Amaila Falls hydro power project, Amerindian development Fund, Amerindian land titling and demarcation, Cunha canal rehabilitation, Biodiversity centre, Micro enterprise fund and Institutional strengthening  have been affected.

Government has said that the most logical action in light of the GPL cut will be to increase electricity tariff, while its expansion project will be affected.

The transport sector cut will affect the Cheddi Jagan international airport expansion project, the continued modernisation of the Ogle airport, maintenance of coastal and hinterland airstrips and the provision of safety equipment for the Guyana Civil Aviation Authority.

In March, Minister Nandlall, speaking on the opposition’s proposed action to cut the 2013 budget had reiterated that Guyana’s Constitution being based on the Westminster model classifies and distributes responsibilities of a governmental nature into the Judiciary, the Executive, and the Legislature.

The Executive under the Constitution has financial responsibility for the state, and included in those is the preparation and the presentation of the national budget.

The doctrine called the Separation of Powers ensures that these powers operate independently.

He has said that the National Assembly was fighting relentlessly to perform functions that are resided in the Executive by the Constitution, so there is a constant attempt to trespass and transgress the province of the Executive, and reminded of the scenario when the 2012 National Budget was cut. “These arguments were advanced to the Chief Justice in the budget cases which I filed…he upheld most of them, if not all. I see now that it is being argued that the ruling is preliminary… the fact that it is a preliminary ruling does not cause it to lose its efficacy… it is an interpretation of the Constitution of Guyana by the Constitutional Court of Guyana.’

The Chief Justice in the ruling declared that in the Constitution it can be readily seen that it is the Minister of Finance who bears the Constitutional responsibility and duty of preparing and laying before the National Assembly the estimates of both revenue and expenditure.

The role of the National Assembly is to perform an oversight or gate-keeping function of approval or non approval of the estimates of expenditure to ensure that they are in consonance with what will be necessary to fuel the implementation of plans, programmes and policies of the executive government. “This is not a power of making estimates of expenditure; the power of approval must now therefore be distinguished from a power of determination of the estimates of expenditure.”

This point was made by the Chief Justice on page 17 of his ruling when he spoke of the compartmentalisation of the spheres of responsibility under the Constitution.