Gov’t side reiterates House cannot cut National budget- Speaker to rule tomorrow - consideration of estimates delayed

Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman will rule on Tuesday whether the National Assembly has the right to cut the Estimates and Expenditures for 2013 that was presented by the Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh on March 25.

The consideration of the Estimates scheduled to begin today was delayed as the Speaker chose to address the issue before the Committee of Supply begins consideration of the allocations.

Chairman of the Alliance for Change (AFC), Khemraj Ramjattan moved a Motion in the House to make amendments (cut) to the budget, which was allowed by the Speaker notwithstanding the ruling of the Chief Justice in the 2012 Budget cut case which explicitly states that the National Assembly does not have the power to cut the budget.

Ramjattan presenting his Motion maintained that it is the right of any National Assembly to effectuate amendments to the budget. This he said, is what gives the House the power to scrutinise/supervise public funds.

In his interpretation of Article 218 of the Constitution, he said that, “we can do it once we give a 24-hour notice…it is stated in our constitution, the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act  and our standing orders…the Parliament must have supervision of the public’s purse.”

Finance Minister must revise – not National Assembly  

Referring to the imposed cuts to the 2012 budget, Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh said that the opposition, having exercised what they believe to be their rights at the time, the matter was taken to the court. The court made a definitive pronouncement on the matter; deeming the opposition’s actions unconstitutional.

Minister Singh said that, “the Finance Minister respects the court of law and will be guided by decisions by the court.”

Article 218 to which Ramjattan referred, speaks of the Finance Minister preparing and laying before the House estimates of the revenue and expenditure of Guyana. It further stated that when these estimates of expenditure have been approved by the National Assembly, a Bill to be known as the Appropriation Bill shall be introduced.

The constitution makes absolutely no provision for what course of action must be taken if the estimates are not approved or cut or for estimates to be submitted for any authority other than the Minister responsible for finance.

Minister Singh explained that it is precisely this point that the distinguished Chief Justice ruled that, “it is the executive who has the constitutional responsibility of managing and piloting the ship of State and, as a matter of practical reality, the administrative machinery for preparing such estimates… the Constitution does not address or speak to a negative state of affairs such as non-approval by the National Assembly but speaks to a positive state of affairs, that is approval.”

The Chief Justice further stated that this is so because it is inconceivable that the National Assembly as a national institution would cripple executive governance by non- approval of any estimates of expenditure. Article 218 (2) of the constitution was drafted on the assumption that the National Assembly would approve the estimates.

Minister Singh quoted that court ruling which stated that, “if the National Assembly were to cut or reduce the estimates of expenditure, this would mean that the estimates of expenditure would be as determined and approved by the National Assembly, rather than by determined by the Minister and approved by the National Assembly.”

He clarified this point by indicating that it is the Minister of Finance who must revise the Estimates and Expenditures and not the National Assembly, and the cutting and subsequent passage of the budget would be pre-empting the Minister from so revising.

Moreover, the Chief Justice stated that the National Assembly cannot proceed to effect a reduction on an existing charge without the introduction of an amending Bill.

This means that a charge can only be created by the passing of an Appropriation Act, reflecting the amount which has received the approval of the National Assembly. Therefore, to reduce the amount of such a charge would require an amending Act.

Not constitutionally allowed

Meanwhile, Government’s Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira also reaffirmed that the ruling Administration will be guided by the written rule of the court. She noted that it is the prerogative of the Government to propose, and it is the right of the Opposition to oppose.

She explained that, the National Assembly has to recognise it is the Government that determines the estimates. She added that they can question, oppose or abstain from voting.

“By cutting many times, one is reducing the budget. What the Opposition wants this House to do, is not allowed by the Constitution, and not supported by the Chief Justice,” she said.

Subsequently, Deputy Speaker, Deborah Backer accused the ruling Party of being dismissive of shared governance, which she said would have seen the House meeting consensus and compromise on the budget.

Leader of the House, Prime Minister Samuel Hinds however, rose to dismiss Ms. Backer’s argument and to reiterate that the PPP/C has always been and will remain committed to shared governance.

Motion should not have been entertained

Attorney General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall reminded that the court has already ruled on the issue before the House, and as such, the Motion presented by Ramjattan is not permissible and therefore, should not have been entertained in the National Assembly.

He said that while he’s not oblivious of the power of the majority in Parliament, the said majority must ensure that it stays within the ambit of the constitution.

The AG said that the Opposition is trying to twist the Chief Justice’s ruling to suit their own political ends. This, he said, is an affront to the judiciary.   He also pointed out that the High Court of Guyana has supervisory jurisdiction over the National Assembly of Guyana.

“The constitution declares itself to be the supreme law of this land, whether majority or minority we must all subscribe to that supremacy,” the AG asserted.

Like Minister Singh, the AG too, took great pains to take the House step by step through the Chief Justice’s ruling and also references to a number of similar legal rulings of courts in several jurisdictions around the world that have a similar constitutional structure as that of Guyana.    He listed more than 10 examples of cases that determined that the Court is the sentinel and holds supervisory jurisdiction of the National Assembly.

AG Nandlall also made it clear to the opposition that if they have a problem with the Chief Justice’s ruling, they are free to challenge it in the court not in the National Assembly. The attorneys on the opposition side are aware of this, yet, to date, no challenge has been filed.   The AG said the opposition must distinguish between the powers of approval and disapproval.

“I am not saying that you can’t disagree with the court, I am saying that you are bound by it,” the AG stated.

He reminded the House than when the Chief Justice dismissed Government’s Motion which sought to challenge the opposition’s on the composition of the Committee of Selection, the Administration respected that ruling.

Importantly, the opposition was in full agreement with the ruling that threw out the Government’s case, but they chose to disregard the ruling on the budget cuts simply because it wasn’t in their favour.

APNU member Basil Williams also expressed the view that the National Assembly is within its right to made amendments to the budget.

AFC’s Ramjattan in wrapping up the presentations declared that if Budget 2013 is rejected in its entirety it would be tantamount to crippling the country; he suggested that it would be better to have cuts than to have a total disapproval of the budget.