| National Assembly has no power to violate laws of Guyana – AG on proposed move to Privileges Committee for Finance Minister |  |  |  |
| Written by GINA |
| Monday, 21 January 2013 21:36 |
THE National Assembly of Guyana, whether by majority or minority, has no power to contravene the laws or the Constitution of Guyana, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall has stated emphatically.
 Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall It has been reported in the private media, recently, that the combined Parliamentary opposition is planning to move to the Privileges Committee to sanction the Finance Minister for restoring budgetary funding to government agencies which were refused when the National 2012 Budget was presented.  Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh “The question is not whether the majority has made a decision or not. It is whether the government has acted in conformity with the law, the standard operational procedures and with the Constitutional provisions dealing with the issue at hand,” the Attorney General explained. “If it relates to the budget cuts restoration, the Honourable Dr. Ashni Singh acted pursuant to guidance given on the matter by the Honourable Chief Justice (CJ) in the budget cut case,” he said. Minister Nandlall pointed to two pronouncements by the CJ on the issue. Firstly, that the cutting of the 2012 National Estimates presented by the Minister of Finance was unconstitutional. Secondly, that the Constitution and the Financial Management and Accountability Act together confer upon the minister a discretionary power to form an opinion that there has been an insufficiency of funds allocated to a Ministry or budgetary agency; “and once that opinion is formulated by the minister, then he has the power at law to access monies from the Consolidated Fund intended to fill that insufficiency, then go to the National Assembly and get the Assembly’s approval for the spending thus made.” He reiterated that, “there is a provision in the Constitution to allow that to happen, also the Constitution permits the Minister of Finance to seek prior or subsequent approval from the Assembly.” Minister Singh has since sought subsequent approval, and the claim reported in the private media is that the minister has moved against a majority parliamentary decision. “It’s not about whether you are going against the majority decision. It is whether the majority decision is in consonance with the laws of the country and the Constitution; that is the issue. If the majority decision, as we have seen on a number of occasions, is violative of the Constitution of the country and laws, why must we abide by it?” he questioned. Minister Singh, on January 10, 2012, reported to the National Assembly, in writing, that where sums approved by the National Assembly under the Appropriation Act 2012 were found to be inadequate to meet the services of government, supplementary financing was resorted to in accordance with the law. He was responding to questions posed by A Partnership for National Unity Member of Parliament Carl Greenidge, who questioned the Minister on whether the CJ’s ruling suggests that either he (CJ) or the Ministry of Finance could restore cuts to the budget, or that the CJ could authorise the Ministry of Finance to make advances from the Consolidated Fund. Minister Singh stated that the categories and sums involved have already been reported to the National Assembly in successive Financial Papers, and the legal basis for the payments resided in the Constitution of Guyana and the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act of 2003. He added also that the appropriateness of the course of action adopted by government was confirmed in advance by the Attorney General, and approved by Cabinet. Minister Singh also stated that during his ruling when the CJ pointed out that the cuts to the National Budget were unconstitutional, the CJ had made several relevant references to the Constitution. The 2012 National Budget was in April, 2012, passed in the National Assembly after the combined opposition used their one-seat majority to cut more than $20B off the estimates. The initial $192.8B presented to the House on March 30 was slashed to $172B, plunging several programmes into doubt, including the internationally acclaimed Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS). The motion carried by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) was supported by the Alliance For Change with Customs Anti Narcotic Unit being reduced from $20M to $1.00, State Planning Secretariat from $105M, to $1.00, the Ethnic Relations Commission from $99.49M to $1.00, and over $2B was cut from the Offices of the President and Prime Minister. Other agencies were also affected by the cuts, including State agencies National Communications Network and Government Information Agency, whose allocations were also reduced to $1.00 each. |