PLACING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE
July 12, 2014, By KNews, Filed Under Features/Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source
The parliamentary opposition is leaving the public extremely confused. On the one hand, APNU had hinted that in relation to the controversy over the spending by the Minister of Finance, it may have sought resolution through the courts.
But no sooner had the ink dried on the reports of this suggestion that we are now being told that a motion referring the Minister of Finance to the Privileges Committee is being prepared. That seems a clear case, as is wont with the opposition parties, of placing the cart before the horse.
It would have been much more advisable for the opposition parties to have first sought a ruling on the legality and constitutionality of the Minister’s action, before citing him for an irregularity which by its own admission can only be established by the courts.
Let it be recalled that it was the very opposition parties who had claimed that it is only the courts that can pronounce on the constitutionality of laws. By extension, it is only the courts which can definitively determine the legality and constitutionality of the spending by the Minister of sums beyond the appropriations passed by the National Assembly.
I fail to see how a prima facie case can be made out to refer the Minister to the Committee of Privileges when an offence has not been established by the competent authorities. But then again, I must not forget that we are dealing with very unique circumstances in the National Assembly.
My position on this matter is known. I have said before that the Minister has done nothing wrong. And in fact, if the Minister is to be cited for any wrongdoing, the opposition parties will have a great deal of explaining of, why they consented to supplementary provisions and Statements of Excesses over the past two years? If their argument is that the Minister is acting wrongly, then what will they call their act of approving similar spending by the Minister over the past two years? See why I am confused!
The better course would have been the legal route. It did seem as if the opposition was contemplating going this route. But there must have been a change of mind if the talk is now about a motion referring the Minister to the Committee of Privileges.
One grouping, the Committee in Defense of the Constitution, has approached the Courts to deliberate on an issue relating to funds not being deposited by NICIL into the Consolidated Fund. This column had in the past also ventured a position on this issue. The ruling of the court on this question will settle once and for all the legal position as regards funds from corporate bodies and their relationship with the Consolidated Fund. It will end an ongoing controversy over whether sums should be paid by NICIL into the Consolidated Fund.
And when the decision comes, if there are parties that do not agree with the verdict, they can appeal it all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice. This is what the legal system is there for. It is there to settle disputes relating to alleged abuse of the law and the Constitution.
It is beholden on all political parties to as much as possible, demonstrate confidence in our judicial system because that system goes all the way up to the Caribbean Court of Justice which is our final Court of Appeal.
If the Minister did something wrong, establish an offence under the law. Do not drag him in front of a committee without first establishing his guilt. Establish that he has broken the law and then have him referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Indeed, if an offence is established, those pushing for the Minister to be referred to the Committee of Privileges need not go that route. They can pressure him to resign. But first establish that his actions are unlawful.