Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

What the chief justice ruled

Posted By Staff Writer On February 2, 2014 @ 5:10 am In Features,Sunday | No Comments

The section on Financial Procedures in the Standing Orders of the National Assembly is the same today as it was in 1969. In that year the Standing Orders were amended, no doubt to bring them in line with the provisions of the Independence Constitution of 1966. The Standing Orders had been approved by the same National Assembly which had approved the Independence Constitution.

The Financial Procedures provide for each head of expenditure to be “considered” and “decided” by the National Assembly. It specifically provides for amendments to increase or reduce any head of expenditure. In accordance with the constitution, it states that an amendment to increase may only be moved by a minister who must signify cabinet approval. No such requirement exists in relation to an amendment to reduce. Cabinet approval is therefore not necessary to reduce.

The constitutional foundation for the above powers given to the National Assembly by the Standing Orders was initially contained in Article 111 of the Independence Constitution. It provided for the Minister of Finance to lay before the National Assembly the estimates of revenues and expenditure and after approval by the Assembly for the Appropriation Bill to be laid. Article 218 of the current constitution contains the identical provision.

20131201ralphramkarranEssentially, therefore, the power of the National Assembly to increase or reduce the estimates has remained intact and unchallenged since Independence based on what appeared to be clear constitutional provisions. It probably remained unchallenged because the governing party has always had a majority in the National Assembly. It is only since 2011 that the situation has changed. The opposition now has a majority and has invoked the power to amend the estimates by reducing sums proposed for items of expenditure.

The reduction of sums in the estimates in 2012 was challenged in court by the government which sought many orders and declarations, the main one being that the reduction was unconstitutional. Having already given a preliminary ruling, Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang gave his final ruling on January 29 by which he confirmed his earlier ruling that the National Assembly cannot amend the estimates by increasing or reducing them but that its power is limited to giving or withholding its approval.

The core, though not the entire basis, of the Chief Justice’s ruling rests on his interpretation of Article 171(2) of the constitution. The article prohibits the National Assembly, without the consent of the cabinet, from considering any bill which “makes provision” for, among other things, imposing any charge on the Consolidated Fund “otherwise than by reducing it” which is stated in the article in parenthesis. Similarly, it prohibits the considering of any motion “to make provision for any of the purposes aforesaid,” that is to say, considering a bill to impose a charge and the other things which Article 171(2) provides for but which should not detain us here.

The Chief Justice construed the phrase “for any of the purposes aforesaid” and the remainder of the article which provides for the motion, to mean that in considering a motion to reduce a charge to the Consolidated Fund the exemption from requiring cabinet consent for a reduction which applies to a bill does not apply in the case of a motion. In other words, while the cabinet’s consent is not required for a reduction of a charge to the Consolidated Fund by way of a bill, it is required in the case of a motion. This means that the Speaker can allow a bill proposing a reduction of a charge to the Consolidated Fund without cabinet consent but cannot allow a motion for the same purpose without cabinet consent. Hence the opposition cannot move such a motion since it would be unlikely to obtain cabinet consent. Since the estimates can only be reduced by way of motions, the opposition would have to obtain cabinet consent to do so, a highly unlikely event.

The Chief Justice went further and said that a charge can only be reduced by a bill and not by a motion. And in any event, Article 171(2) has nothing to do with the reduction of the minister’s estimates but rather with the reduction of a charge. This is puzzling because Article 171(2) provides for motions and the estimates are presented by a motion and the way to reduce items are by motions.

In seeking to cut the budget, which are the words being used in common parlance, what the opposition is in effect doing is moving motions to reduce items in the estimates. Therefore the actions of the opposition appear to fall within the parameters contemplated by Article 171(2).

The Chief Justice proceeds to explain that if the estimates are cut by the Assembly, the requirement for cabinet consent would become unnecessary and would be overridden, thereby defeating the requirement for cabinet consent which itself is unconstitutional. He therefore finds that as a matter of constitutional legality, the Assembly cannot amend the estimates. The Chief Justice concludes that the power of the Assembly is limited to withholding its approval for the estimates when they are laid before the Assembly for approval.

The effect of the decision of the Chief Justice is that the power of the National Assembly to “decide” has been curtailed or limited to approving or disapproving, not reducing or ‘cutting.’

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Interesting piece but too bad he did not wrap up with a clear synopsis of his own opinion. Also, how could a man of Ralph's stature use the word "disapprove" in place of "not approve"? Those words have very different meanings.

 

I think that we will have more litigation after the next budget, based on how different groups interpret the Decision.

FM

It would be interesting if Ralph does another article on the legitimacy of the power of the Chief Justice position and Mr.Chang to make this decision with regard to sovereign state rights.  First, the opposition may claim that Mr. Chang was a political appointee therefore his decisions are not impartial or is influenced by political concerns and interests.  Second, the Chief Justice position of Guyana itself and the way it was set up and functions compared  to other similar legal positions of other states may also be under scrutiny.

 

These questions may not seem to be important in Guyana right now.  Nevertheless, if another major State such as one of the ABC countries decides to back the opposition on this issue. Then you can bet that these questions will come into play.  As a result, they may become grounds for economic and political sanctions against the country. 

FM
Last edited by Former Member

The question for me is this: Does approving or disapproving mean having the power to stop.  Because if it does then we may have in Guyana what is happening on Capital Hill with the Republican Block and lots of golf playing between Obama and  Boehner to work out compromises.

FM
Originally Posted by Wally:

The question for me is this: Does approving or disapproving mean having the power to stop.  Because if it does then we may have in Guyana what is happening on Capital Hill with the Republican Block and lots of golf playing between Obama and  Boehner to work out compromises.

 

It does. The only disagreement between the Opposition and Government is HOW to exercise the power to stop.

 

The Opposition claims it can surgically reduce the budget while the government claims that it can only reject or approve the whole budget as a single document.

FM
Originally Posted by KishanB:

I am really concerned that the opposition will disrespect the law and this will cause for a lawless society.

You should be more concerned about the consequences of this absurd ruling by the PPP kangaroo court led by Justice Chang.

Mars
Last edited by Mars
Originally Posted by Mars:
Originally Posted by KishanB:

I am really concerned that the opposition will disrespect the law and this will cause for a lawless society.

You should be more concerned about the consequences of this absurd ruling by the PPP kangaroo court led by Justice Chang.


Mars  - the PPP does not control the Court, what are you trying to say.  The Court is independent and Chang is his own man.  I do not agree with the decision - it is a bad decision but it is still a decision.

 

Let us take it to the CCJ?

 

When??  Lazy Granger will sleep on this action.

FM
Originally Posted by KishanB:
Originally Posted by Mars:
Originally Posted by KishanB:

I am really concerned that the opposition will disrespect the law and this will cause for a lawless society.

You should be more concerned about the consequences of this absurd ruling by the PPP kangaroo court led by Justice Chang.


Mars  - the PPP does not control the Court, what are you trying to say.  The Court is independent and Chang is his own man.  I do not agree with the decision - it is a bad decision but it is still a decision.

 

Let us take it to the CCJ?

 

When??  Lazy Granger will sleep on this action.

If you think that Chang and his kangaroo court are independent, I have a bridge to sell you. He's already bought by the PPP crooks. It's a terrible decision which can only be made by someone who's doing the bidding for the PPP. Hopefully the CCJ shoots down this nonsense soon.

Mars

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×