Police to investigate Finance Minister for ‘illegally’ spending $4.9B

….Ramjattan lodges formal complaint with Police Commissioner, DPP

By Gary Eleazar

The Guyana Police Force is now tasked with investigating whether Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh, along with several

AFC Leader,
Khemraj Ramjattan

Ministry officials, did in fact illegally spend in excess of $4.5B from the nation’s coffers.
Alliance for Change (AFC) Leader, Khemraj Ramjattan, yesterday made good on his threat to lodge a formal complaint against the Government Minister along with officials across the various ministries, which would have expended the monies that the National Assembly had disapproved in the Annual 2014 Budget.
Ramjattan yesterday lodged an extensive nine page complaint at the office of the Commissioner of Police, Seelall Persaud, as well as with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Shalimar Ali- Hack.
Complaint
According to Ramjattan’s complaint, “I make a formal complaint and report that the Minster and other officials in his Ministry have committed a violation of the provisions of the FMA (Fiscal Management and Accountability) Act 2003…He has spent monies without having obtained legislative authorization.”
Ramjattan in his complaint is adamant that the expenditure constitutes a misusing, a misapplication, or an improper disposal of public monies totalling $4.533B for a period up to 16th June, 2014.
According to Ramjattan, such a violation contravenes Sections 46 and 85 of the FMA Act, by virtue of knowingly permitting other persons to contravene the provisions of the law.
“From every indication this criminal violation will continue up to 31st December 2014.”
Ramjattan in his complaint points to the fact that the Finance Minster has pointed out that he does not need to get legislative authorisation first, or any appropriation before he spends public monies on these programmes and asserts that he can spend without appropriation, because he has article 218 3 (b) which comes to his aid in permitting him to do so.
“This however, flies in the face of the explicit, unequivocal language of Article 217 and Section 16 of the FMA Act 2003.”
Carte Blanche
According to Ramjattan, the Finance Minister feels that Article 218 (3B) of the Constitution has given him a blank cheque to spend money without prior appropriation, but it does not.
Ramjattan argues that it is merely a provision as it relates to a Statement of Excess which is prescriptive of what must be done to bring to the attention of the National Assembly of what was mis-spent in any financial year for purposes of signing off the accounts for that year.
Ramjattan asserts that the Article that Dr. Singh is relying on, does not and must never be read to give a carte blanche to the Minister of Finance to legitimise or legalise his mis-spending in contravention of the Constitution and the FMA Act 2003.
“It is only for the purpose of bringing transparency to the National Assembly as to the financial excesses of the Executive arm of the State and its excessive spending over a period of that financial year…So that in this case of a Statement of Excess, the elected officials will be made aware of how much more was spent and by which Agencies or Departments, as against what was appropriated in the Annual Appropriation Act. And in the case of this Statement of Excess, after having seen what the nature of these extra or excess spendings are, the Assembly may proceed to legislatively validate them, hence signing off them as a State must do having discovered mis-spendings.”

Finance Minister,
Dr Ashni Singh

Unauthorised Spending
According to Ramjattan, “this certainly does not mean that the Minister and his officials who would have created and caused these unauthorised spendings to the tune here in excess of $4.533B are to be let off the criminal hook!”
Ramjattan in his complaint to the Guyana Police Force and DPP, said, “This Finance Minister, from all appearances, has completely misapprehended the concept of Statement of Excess. And by logical extension, through this misapprehension, he feels he can use this as a device to bypass the non-approvals and disapprovals of Programmes and line items voted on by the National Assembly at the Annual Estimates in April, 2014.”
Ramjattan has since argued that this is arrogance and is also criminal.
The AFC Leader contends that the Finance Minister unfortunately feels that by bringing a Statement of Excess, he will immunize himself from criminality, “not so at all!”
Ramjattan in elucidating on the Statement of Excess, said “Since our Parliamentary practice and public financial arrangements concerning the State’s revenues and the law and practice governing same originated out of England, it is England we have to go to understand the text of article 218 (3) (b) and 219 (2).”
Procedure
He notes that “the need for an excess vote arises when a department has carried expenditure upon a service beyond the amount granted to that service, during the financial year for which the grant was made.”
As it relates to the process to be used, Ramjattan points out that “Demands for excess grants are not brought before the House of Commons until the following steps have been taken. When the exact amount of the excess expenditure for the past financial year has been ascertained on the completion of the audit of the appropriation accounts, the Comptroller and Auditor General reports to the House and this report comes before the Committee of Public Accounts.
After examination, the Committee makes a report to the House, if possible in February or early March of the financial year, following that in which the excess occurred, setting out the various excesses, and stating the objections (if any) to their being approved.
The Treasury then presents a Statement of Excess, setting out all the instances of excess expenditure for the year in question, which is presented as a single vote for each branch of the estimates in which excess expenditure has occurred. If the Committee of Public Accounts reports that it sees no objection, the question on excess votes may be put without debate on a day not later than 18 March, pursuant to Standing Order No. 53 (3). The vote is normally included in the March Consolidated Fund Bill, and receives final sanction in the next Appropriation Act.”
According to Ramjattan “This being what a Statement of Excess is all about, it is clear that the Finance Minister is misapplying it upon the National Assembly for the purpose and in the manner which he has done.”
Manipulating
Ramjattan says that it is clear, too, that a Statement of Excess ought never to be manipulated in such a manner as to be used to do something it never can do, that is, to make spendings by the Finance Minister legal in the face of the National Assembly’s disapprovals or non-approvals of appropriations.
According to Ramjattan, the Finance Minister cannot by his abject misconstruction of Statement of Excess as mentioned in articles 218 (3) (b) and 219 (2) of the Constitution, transmute what was intended as a correctional measure by the National Assembly for excessive spending in any financial year, to authority to spend in defiance of the National Assembly’s no-vote on certain programmes and line items.
Ramjattan further states that the constitutional provisions are but a distillation of the Parliamentary practices of England’s House of Commons concerning financial matters, which Guyana inherited at Independence in 1966 and which are in use up to today in our Guyanese equivalent, the National Assembly of Guyana.
He says that it is the substantive laws that spell out the dictates of the constitutional provisions, this case being the FMA Act.
In his complaint he said “since Constitutional provisions are by their nature general and invariably attempt at capturing principles and precepts, there is need for accompanying legislation to give more specific and direct instructions to ensure that the letter and spirit of the Constitution are met.”
FMA Encapsulates
He said that the long title of this FMA Act 2003 encapsulates succinctly what it is – “An Act to provide for the regulation of the preparation and execution of the annual budget; the receipt, control, and disbursement of public monies; the accounting for public monies; and such other matters connected with or incidental to the transparent and efficient management of the finances of Guyana.”
According to Ramjattan “clearly this FMA Act 2003 is specifically providing for the law and practice governing appropriations and spending of public monies. Its provisions have the object of preventing and counteracting misappropriation by unauthorised, fraudulent and other means. It provides for a number of offences which may be committed by persons who fail to act in accordance with its provisions. Criminal sanctions are stipulated.”
Ramjattan said that the FMA Act states expressly that “There shall be no expenditure of public monies except in accordance with article 217 of the Constitution.”
Ramjattan in his extensive complaint said that “There is thus, this almost absolute rule which governs Guyana’s public finances. It is that there must be no spending without appropriation, or in other words, no spending without legislative authorisation. For every item of spending, there must have been some Parliamentary approved appropriation or authorisation. This rule is very strict in the sphere of public finances in all Westminster-type democracies.”