Conservatory order necessary to protect national coffers – say Attorneys representing Opposition

January 8, 2015 | By KNews | Filed Under News, Source - Kaieteur News

Attorneys representing opposition Leader, Brigadier (Rt’d) David Granger, yesterday commenced arguments in support of an application for a conservatory order which was filed last year, to prevent spending all monies unapproved by the National Assembly.

A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) has taken Government to court in a bid to stop what it said is the unauthorized spending of billions of dollars disapproved in the National Budget earlier last year.

The court application dated December 11, 2014 was filed on behalf of Granger. The application is a conservatory order to stay all spending and/or any further spending by the Finance Minister Ashni Singh, or other Ministers designated by the President on programmes disapproved or not authorized by the National Assembly until the court matter has been heard and determined.

Some $36.75B was disapproved by the Opposition-controlled National Assembly; The disapproved monies included some $1.3B from Office of the President (OP) under its Administrative Services programme; $3.8B also from Office of the President for capital estimates also under Administrative Services; some $22B from Ministry of Finance; $1.1B from Ministry of Amerindian Affairs’ Development Fund; $6.78B from Ministry of Public Works capital works and $1.3B from the Ministry of Health’s Regional and Clinic.

However, the Finance Minister admitted that some $4.5B had been spent for the period ended June 16, 2014.

As such, Granger is asking the court to declare that the National Assembly, in keeping with Article 218 (2) of the Constitution, lawfully disapproved in the annual estimates of Revenue and Expenditure of 2014.

The application that was presented before Chief Justice (Ag), Ian Chang, named Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh, the Attorney General and Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman as the defendants.

In an affidavit in answer, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall called on the court to refuse the application, with an appropriate order for costs, given that the challenge is wholly misconceived and erroneous in law.

Nandlall described the application as “political propanganda.”  The affidavit, signed by Dr. Singh, stated that, that Conservatory Order will be overtaken by events by the time it is ready for hearing and therefore, it would be a futile exercise for the court to consider, more so, grant it.”

During an in camera  proceeding  before the Chief Justice yesterday, Attorneys –at- Law Basil Williams and Rex McKay (S.C) who are among a team of legal representatives acting on behalf of the Opposition Leader, noted that there was no substance in the affidavit which was presented in response to the application.

Mc Kay argued that the case is one of unlawful spending by the Minister of Finance and the Government.  He noted that the affidavit provided no real answers for the contentions raised in the ex parte application for the Conservatory Order.

Williams referred to the situation in Kenya and Trinidad, in which the conservatory orders were granted under similar circumstances. Williams explained that the orders were granted on the basis that there was a need to protect the public coffers.

Williams reiterated that the Minister has been spending illegally and argued that there is nothing in the constitution or statues which can be relied upon to show that the Minister of Finance can lawfully spend on programmes which were disapproved by the National Assembly.

He expressed confidence that the order will be successful given that it is an order to protect the people’s monies.

Williams also noted that the order is necessary given the prorogation of Parliament, which has prevented opposition scrutiny of Government’s spending.  He expressed that the order will protect the people’s money since, wherever a public purse is threatened that situation warrants a conservatory order.

“If we didn’t believe we would be successful we would not have come to the court,” Williams told members of the media yesterday.

Meanwhile, lawyers representing the government, and the Minister of Finance, maintained that his actions were in compliance with well-known constitutional provisions and procedures.

Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, described the court action as a misconceived badly taught out strategy.

“I think the case was filed as an afterthought because it seeks to restrain spending when the spending would have been almost completed. The case was filed at the end 2014 to prevent spending in 2014,” Nandlall said.

He said that the Minister of Finance had similarly expended sums at his discretion for three successive years in accordance with the laws of Guyana.  Nandlall also pointed that they have two rulings by the Chief Justice in which he noted that the Minister of Finance has the discretion if he wishes, to use money contemplated in the laws of Guyana.

Nandlall is expected to present his arguments before the court when the matter resumes on Friday.