Govt’s illegal $4.5B spending a ‘national tragedy’

-‘culprit’ has escaped sanctions, monies not recovered, says Dr. Ramsahoye

 “The only option is a criminal proceeding if the political opposition takes office after the May 11 elections. Ashni has escaped again and only a change of government will stop him…”

By: Kiana Wilburg
Eminent Guyanese scholar Dr. Fenton Ramsahoye S.C says that Guyana has chalked up another historic tragedy on its already damaged reputation, as $4.5B has been proven by the court to be illegally spent and the ‘culprit’ may very well escape any sanction.
The Queen’s Counsel was at the time referring to the recent ruling by Chief Justice (ag), Ian Chang, who found that Government’s expenditure of the $ 4.5 billion unapproved by the National Assembly last year, is in breach of the nation’s constitution.
But Chang’s 36-page ruling did not include a single repercussion for the defaulters.
Sir Ramsahoye said that while Chang’s ruling would tell us that the action of the Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh is illegal and should not have been spent, it however fails to provide further remedy or relief.
As a consequence, the political opposition is back to ‘square one’ and the people are left to wonder if there will be any sanction for the illegal expenditure or worse yet, if it can be recovered from those who spent it, Dr. Ramsahoye added.
He opined that the Chief Justice could have delivered certain sanctions, apart from only stating that the expenditure was unlawful.

Dr. Fenton Ramsahoye S.C, former Attorney General

Based on Chang’s ruling, Dr. Ramsahoye said that Dr. Singh’s actions constitute a misdemeanor in public office.
The former Attorney General said that what the ruling  shows is that the people who comprise the National Assembly have been unable or unwilling to reach any agreement about making the expenditure lawful as it was disapproved by the House.
He noted too that the ruling that the expenditure is illegal has “placed Guyana in a national tragedy, simply because the money belonging to the people, has been unlawfully spent, and there is no means of recovering it at the moment and those who committed the offense are without any sanctions.”
The consequence, he said, is that the rule of law has been subverted.
“But the Minister of Finance acted in accordance with the wishes of the dictators of his party, and ironically, that party does not even enjoy the confidence of the majority of the electorate. The government is not likely to prosecute Ashni Singh and the Minster cannot be impeached by the Parliament for this matter because it is expected to be dissolved soon. Further, matters of the Tenth Parliament cannot be raised in the Eleventh. The only option is a criminal proceeding if the political opposition takes office after the May 11 elections. Ashni has escaped again and only a change of government will stop him,” Dr. Ramsahoye asserted.
But in response, Chief Justice Ian Chang (Ag) told Kaieteur News that it is not his business to deliver disciplinary measures against the defaulters. He said that is the responsibility of the National Assembly.
The acting CJ said that the only option is for the opposition to take the case up in a criminal proceeding, but his job was simply to decide whether the matter was in breach of the Constitution.
Though Chang had ruled that the government acted unlawfully, he declined to grant the conservatory order sought by the plaintiff, Opposition Leader David Granger. The order sought to prevent the government from spending more monies which did not receive Parliamentary approval.
The acting CJ said that the order was “misconceived and must be dismissed.”
He advised that a conservatory order must now (in 2015) relate strictly to future constitutional or statutory spending excess and not past excesses.
The Chief Justice said that if the order was granted it would in effect be an injunction against Government spending permitted by the Constitution and the Financial Management and Accountability Act, rather than a conservatory order against non-approved spending for the past financial year, one he noted as “a classic case of the grant of an injunction as a conservatory order.”
Chang said that for those reasons, the application for an interlocutory conservatory order cannot be granted.