Court rules Govt. breached law in approving budget for constitutional agencies
Kaieteur News – The High Court has ruled that the Irfaan Ali administration breached the constitution when it approved budget proposals for constitutional agencies back in 2020.
Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh.
The ruling was made on Monday almost a year after Opposition Member of Parliament (MP) and former Minister of Public Infrastructure, David Patterson, filed a lawsuit in relation against the government for the $11.2 billion allocation in the 2020 emergency budget.
The matter involved Patterson —the applicant and the respondents— Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh and the Attorney General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall.
It was reported that the Patterson was seeking a declaration that the consideration and approval of budget proposals for constitutional agencies by the National Assembly on September 1, 2020 was in breach of Section 80 B(2) of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act (FMAA).
Patterson had stated that the proposals were not made available to his party before September 1, 2021, and as such is a breach of the Act and that a failure to circulate the budget proposals to members of the Opposition, prior to September 1, 2021, is also in breach of the FMAA.
Attorney General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall.
He also asked the court to grant him a declaration that the budget and/or proposal of the Audit Office ought to have been submitted to Parliament by the Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), prior to approval and consideration by the House in accordance with the FMAA.
On Monday, High Court Judge, Justice Franklyn Holder ruled that the Minister of Finance acted in breach of the constitution when he allocated the said budget, rejected arguments by the AG, inter alia.
Justice Holder ruled that the Finance Minister and the National Assembly acted in breach of Article 219 (3) of the Constitution; that the Finance Minister acted contrary to and in breach of Section 80 of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act and that the Minister of Finance and the National Assembly had no legal right or justification to breach the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act and Article 219 (3) of the Constitution.
Opposition Member of Parliament (MP) and former Minister of Public Infrastructure, David Patterson.
A declaration was granted that purported consideration and approval of the Budgets proposals of Constitutional Agencies by the National Assembly on September 1, 2020 is in breach of Section 80 B (2) of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2015.
Also, that the budget and or budget proposal of the Audit Office of Guyana is to be submitted to Parliament by the chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee in accordance with Section 80 B (1) of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act of 2015.
In handing down his ruling, Justice Holder stated that the court found that in protecting the public interest, the grant of relief in the form of a Declaration was appropriate to protect the Rule of Law and to vindicate legal rights.
The Court also found that Patterson was “not a busy body and that he had real interest in protecting the public interest and in the Rule of law, particularly as a Member of the National Assembly.”
It was also noted that the case raised weighty Rule of Law considerations. The Court also rejected the arguments by the AG that the Government breached of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act was to be excused on the doctrine of necessity, and the AG’s contention that the case had become academic and of no use as Parliament had since repealed the provisions in the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act.
Moreover, the court found that aside from the repeal of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act that the Court was under a Constitutional duty to ensure that the Rule of Law be maintained and the public interest protected. Lastly, the Court awarded costs to be assessed against the AG and the Minister of Finance.