Resorting to the courts will not solve Budget issue – Nagamootoo

Alliance for Change (AFC) Member of Parliament and Vice Chairman Moses Nagamootoo says the legal avenue which Government has  signaled it might pursue with respect to the non approvals made by the combined Opposition over the 2014 Budget, will not solve their concerns. According to Nagamootoo the Government always has a legal avenue. “We can’t prevent them from going to court if they feel that way. We understood the interpretation that was given by the Chief Justice in what is called the Budget Cut Case; there is always an avenue for the Government to go that way rather than seeking a political solution.”

AFC Vice Chairman Moses Nagamootoo

He outlined that Government could argue that the non approval of the entire programme was contrary to  Chief Justice Ian Chang’s ruling which he asserted “is their interpretation.” However, according to the AFC Vice Chairman, resorting “to the court is not going to solve what is clearly a matter that ought to find a political solution.” Nagamootoo further outlined that he doesn’t “think the Chief Justice could tell them that we could vote for a Specialty Hospital or the Amaila Falls, the Chief Justice cannot tell the Parliament what to do” and asserted, “that is the dilemma…. the Executive is seeking the intervention of the Judiciary in an area that concerns the autonomy of the Legislature.” The National Assembly according to Nagamootoo “clearly has responsibility to protect the public purse and we believe that’s what has happened. On this occasion the Opposition did not cut, the Opposition did not amend; it was the Minister of Finance who, having seen the intention of the Opposition in the Committee of Supply to disapprove certain allocations in actual sense proposed to the Government to consider altering the figures.” He continued that the Finance Minister as representative of the Executive who reported to the National Assembly what happened in the Committee of Supply in reporting to the Assembly “presented a figure to the National Assembly that the Estimates be approved with amendments …it means that at that point in time it was the Minister of Finance who proposed the amendments.” Nagamootoo posited further that the AFC didn’t cut anything; the Committee of Supply indicated its disapproval of certain aspects and it was available to the Minister of Finance to say whether or not Government would wish to amend. “So it was the Minister of Finance representing the President who actually proposed the amendments to the Estimates and the National Assembly having approved the estimates as amended; the Finance Minister then brought the Appropriation Bill to have the sum appropriated from the Consolidated Fund in that amount as he amended it” said Nagamootoo. He explained that it was the entire National Assembly that voted on a motion by the Minister of Finance. “So it was the Minister of Finance who moved the motion that the Estimates be approved as amended meaning he acted on behalf of the Executive to amend the Estimates after the Committee of Supply which is a Committee of the House, it does not have more power than the House.” According to Nagamootoo, that’s why the Speaker of the National Assembly has repeatedly said “after a vote is taken in the Committee of Supply by non-approving it, it is actually making a proposal for amendment not actually amending.” He said the Government will have to decide whether it will put the estimates as submitted, in which case it would then have been available for the AFC to vote on the entire Estimate either in favour or vote against. “The Minister of Finance did not put the Estimates as tabled so it was by the Ministers own hand that the Estimates was altered so if they want to go to the court for an interpretation of what the Minister of Finance did, they can do that.” Nagamootoo asserted that he doesn’t “believe that the Minister of Finance is reposed with the final wisdom… he has acted and he may wish to now go and ask the court to interpret whether his actions was contrary to the constitution…I don’t know if it makes any sense having acted to now go and ask the umpire to decide whether he was leg before wicket.”