After all that fat talk and two hundred threads posted on GNI by Kwame's butt boys, they were humbled into submission. 

"Leader of the House Prime Minister Samuel Hinds stated that the government would abide by it."

".... it was not expressly stated in the constitution it would be absurd to think the people's representatives could not amend the budget.

"It has been suggested in this House that because the word amendment is not included in the constitution's language that the National Assembly cannot amend the estimates.

This in my humble opinion is quite a quantum leap to take. If taken to its logical conclusion its manifest absurdity is imediately evident," the Speaker stated.

Anybody put albert on suicide watch yet?

Speaker rules budget can be cut

- urges responsible use of cutting powers

- Govt. says will “abide” by ruling

In a decision the opposition hailed as landmark and transformational, Speaker Raphael Trotman yesterday ruled that the National Assembly does have powers to cut the national budget.
In giving his ruling, the Speaker referred to the Constitution, the Parliamentary Standing Orders, and the Finance Minister’s statement last year that the House indeed can make amendments, or cuts, to the budget.

House Speaker Raphael Trotman

Government leader in the House, Prime Minister Samuel Hinds, said that the government would “abide” by the ruling, but the Attorney General said that the decision of the Speaker collides with the decision of the Chief Justice.
The Chief Justice last year ruled that the House does not have the power to cut the budget, but only to either approve or disapprove.
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, said the option of a fresh challenge in the court is open, but will depend on what Cabinet decides.
Nandlall said he found himself in an “extremely difficult position” in answering what will happen when, as he anticipates, the Chief Justice confirms his ruling. The Attorney General was at a loss on how to advise the government further.
And so last evening, consideration of the estimates began, with the government facing cuts to the budget.
Prime Minister Hinds said that it was in the government’s interest to proceed with the consideration of the estimates, because there needs to be a budget by the end of April.
The Speaker in his ruling, on the grounds of separation of powers, ruled that the court does not have supervisory powers over the National Assembly. According to Trotman, the Standing Orders are what dictate how the House conducts its business.
Trotman said there is no duty of the House to adopt rulings of the Court and he was not convinced that the court has a supervisory rule over the National Assembly.
The Attorney General said if the entire country were to take the position of the Speaker, then there would be no law and order in the country.
The Speaker had agreed with former speaker Ralph Ramkarran who said that the Standing Orders are as good as written law and could determine the House’s business and that the courts cannot supersede the Standing Orders.  Ramjattan had argued that the Standing Orders allow for amendments to the budget.
The Attorney General had argued that if the drafters of the Constitution had wanted the House to exercise the power to cut, they could have said so explicitly in the Constitution, as was done in India.
The Attorney General refused the arguments of the opposition that an appeal could not have been made of the Chief Justice’s ruling, because that ruling is not final. Nandlall said the opposition’s claim is frivolous and vexatious and puerile.
A Partnership for National Unity (APNU)’s Basil Williams said the Chief Justice’s provisional ruling is “light years” away from being made final.
Deborah Backer, Parliamentarian with APNU, argued that since the end of the 2012 budget, the Opposition Leader, Brigadier (retired) David Granger, had initiated 2013 budget talks. She said if there are and were ongoing budget talks, events like yesterday’s protest by East Bank Berbice residents to have their roads fixed would not have had happened.
She said that ongoing talks would result in a budget that could be roundly supported, though each side of the House might not get everything they want.
The Finance Minister said there was already an extensive consultation process on the budget when asked whether he would consider a more formal mechanism for budget talks with the opposition. The Minister pointed out that the Private Sector had agreed that some of their suggestions were taken on board and included in the budget.
The Finance Minister said that the cuts being proposed by the AFC (no cuts have been formally proposed by APNU) are without merit and go to the core of important developmental projects.
APNU is consulting the AFC on its proposed cuts, which could add up to $38 billion, and would support that party on some of its cuts.
The Speaker in his ruling said that $20.9 million was cut from the budget last year, and the Finance Minister reported to the Assembly with an Appropriation Bill and urged for that Bill to be passed with “amendments” and therefore accepting that amendments could be made. That Bill, with amendments, was signed by the President, thus approving the budget.
The opposition’s trump card, which was quoted by the Speaker in his ruling, came from AFC leader Khemraj Ramjattan. He quoted from a statement of the Finance Minister  Dr. Ashni Singh on April 17, 2012 when he said “it is the legitimate right of the opposition to propose any change within the boundary of the Standing Orders.”
The Finance Minister had said, then, that the ruling PPP/C would defend the right of the Opposition to question the estimates and make amendments.
That essentially chewed up Singh, and the rest of the government’s arguments that the Opposition cannot cut the budget.
Both the AFC and APNU have said that the budget cuts could be avoided if the government comes clean on its spending.
The Opposition parties are due to meet with President Donald Ramotar again today as the government and Opposition look to gain consensus on the budget.