ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, acknowledged on Monday night that the 2014 National Budget has attracted much “public commentary and titillated tremendous public interest” because it is the first budget presented by Government since Acting Chief Justice (CJ) Ian Chang ruled that the National Assembly does not have authority to cut the national estimates.

He stressed that the CJ’s ruling must be adhered to until a pronouncement on the appeal of his decision is made.

Notice of Appeal of Chang’s decision was filed in February by lawyer and Leader of the Alliance For Change (AFC), Khemraj Ramjattan, on behalf of Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, who was listed as the appellant in the court. The AG was listed as a respondent in an appeal of Chang’s controversial 2012 Budget cut ruling.

“I am aware that an appeal has been filed. However, it is the common law of this land that, until and unless an order of a court is set aside or overruled by a court of competent jurisdiction, that order must be obeyed, irrespective of how wrong we may feel it is.” – AG Nandlall

The AG said, “I am aware that an appeal has been filed. However, it is the common law of this land that until and unless an order of a court is set aside or overruled by a court of competent jurisdiction, that order must be obeyed, irrespective of how wrong we may feel it is.

“…when the final ruling (by the CJ) came, both Opposition parties signalled publicly their intention to cut the Budget, clearly disregarding the ruling of the court.
“Right here in this House, repeated references have been made of an intention to cut the budget with an axe, with a scissors, and with a hatchet, in clear disregard of the Chief Justice’s order, and in violation of the ruling.

“…the majority of the members of the National Assembly are essentially — by their words and their conduct — declaring a clear and unequivocal intention to disobey, ignore, and defy rulings emanating from the Judiciary.”

Constitutionally Reprehensible
Nandlall noted that this state of affairs is both legally and constitutionally reprehensible. He said, “It is a most calculated and callous abrogation of the Rule of Law and an assault on our constitutional democracy…. We expect the ordinary man to obey the laws of the land. We expect the ordinary man to obey the Orders of Court. As leaders and lawmakers in this House, we are held by an even greater and higher standard. I dare say that one day we will regret our conduct in this House of trampling upon the Rule of Law and the Constitution of this land, which we swore an allegiance to uphold in this House.”

“It is my honest view that even if the Gods were to descend from the Heavens they would not have been able to craft a budget which would have found the approval of the Opposition.” – Anil Nandlall

The AG made it clear that the Rule of Law is that “fulcrum” that maintains that pivotal balance between civility and anarchy in any society. He said, “When we flout the Rule of Law, we are undermining the integrity of that crucial equilibrium, and can cause this society to slip into that abyss of lawlessness where the laws of the jungle shall prevail.”

According to him, the Opposition has lost the moral authority to challenge any executive actions in this House on the basis that it is unlawful or unconstitutional, given their positions on the ruling of the CJ.
Real and Imagined Problems

The AG acknowledged that there is still much work to be done in many areas, but he noted that some of the problems cited by the Opposition are real and others are imaginary. He said, “I have heard budget speeches of every type. I have heard compliments from the Government side and criticism from the Opposition.

“I have heard from the Opposition that the budget is deficient for a million and one reasons. In trying to make their points, the honourable members have cited every conceivable problem facing the Guyanese people, some imaginary and some real, and they fault the budget for failing to provide a measure or measures to deal with these myriad of problems.

“It is my honest view that even if the Gods were to descend from the Heavens, they would not have been able to craft a budget which would have found the approval of the Opposition.

“I was forced to contemplate what kind of document would be able to address every conceivable economic problem and social ill confronting the people of this country and advance a solution for them. It certainly cannot be that document styled the National Estimates of Expenditure and Revenue for the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, that which we call the Budget.”
He stressed that if the Opposition members of the National Assembly were looking to the Budget to provide a remedy for all the problems which they have raised, they are simply looking in the wrong direction.

Executive Function
Nandlall further explained that the crafting of the national budget is an executive function. He said, “A budget is a means of setting out a blueprint of a nation’s economic and fiscal development for a defined future period of at least a year ahead. This involves an explanation of revenue-raising measure that the Government intends to pursue in the period ahead, and disclosure of the Government’s proposals for public expenditure.

“In this sense, it is a statement of financial intentions. But increasingly absorbed into these projections are announcements with wider socio-economic significance.

“So it is as if the Honourable Members of the Opposition expected Budget 2014 to be a panacea for all Guyana’s problems from Crabwood Creek to Charity, Georgetown to Linden, Linden to Lethem and Point-a-Playa to Konashen. They are simply looking in the wrong place, as they will certainly not find it in Budget 2014.”

Nandlall said the criticisms advanced by the Opposition were not confined to the budget itself, but some were predicated on the presentation of the budget. “We heard that there was no consultation. The truth is that both political parties were invited more than once by the Honourable Minister of Finance for consultation. They rejected the invitation or at least they never turned up. Similar invitations were issued to the Private Sector Commission and organised labour, including GPSU (Guyana Public Service Union),” he said.

The AG made it clear that those groups pronounced later that their engagements with the Finance Minister were fruitful, and they went further to laud the Minister of Finance and his team for taking on board their inputs.

He said, “The Opposition could have done the same, but they chose not to; yet they come here and contend that they were not consulted.

The AG was emphatic in stressing that the current administration has consultative democracy as one of its principles. He said, “We on this side not only believe and preach consultative democracy, but practice it as well. When we were in the majority, we engaged in the same consultative process, because we believe that it is important to democracy and it is an indispensable part of good governance.

“It is for the same reason that we reform this entire Parliament and rejuvenated the committee system. It is for the same reason that we permitted the Opposition to take the Deputy Speaker position when we held the Speakership position. It is for the same reason that we sent almost every major bill to the Select Committee and, on occasions, facilitated public hearings, including the Anti-Money Laundering Principal Act.

“I can go on to cite a thousand more examples. All of this, of course, occurred when we had a majority. But I think the point is made.”
On this point, Shadow Finance Minister Carl Greenidge rose to refute those comments, saying that the Opposition was not engaged in consultations of any form. The contention of the Government is contrary, Greenidge said.

Prior to the start of the debate, the Finance Minister said, “It is a matter of public record (that) we invited the Opposition parties on several occasions, and they failed to turn up.”

Dr Singh explained recently that his e-mail dated January 13, 2014 indicated Government’s invitation to meet on Budget 2014, and requested APNU Member Carl Greenidge to suggest a date. The e-mail was also copied to Granger, Lance Carberry, Khemraj Ramjattan, Dr. Roger Luncheon, and Gail Teixeira. The e-mail also contained copies of documents to be discussed. However, the invitation was met with stony silence from Granger and Greenidge.

Further, in February 2014, there was still no response from the Parliamentary Opposition parties to Government’s invitation to participate in pre-budget consultations.

The Budget debates ends today.