Speaker rules National Assembly can amend budget – warns AFC not a power to exact revenge or settle scores – Gov’t will stand by ruling – PM
April 17, 2013 by , Georgetown, GINA, Source
Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman today ruled that the National Assembly has the right to amend the Estimates and Expenditures presented by the Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh on March 25.
Prime Minister and Leader of the House Samuel Hinds said that the PPP/C administration has no doubt that the budget is the best for the country and the Government stands by it. He however, added that the government respects the ruling.
Chairman of the Alliance for Change (AFC), Khemraj Ramjattan had on Monday, moved a Motion in the House to make amendments (cuts) to the budget. The Motion was allowed by the Speaker, notwithstanding the ruling of the Chief Justice in the 2012 Budget cut case which explicitly stated that the National Assembly does not have the power to cut the budget.
Even as he made the ruling, the Speaker sent out a strong warning to the National Assembly focusing specifically on his own Party, the AFC, that he will intervene in the work of the Assembly from time to time ‘to ensure that we don’t move towards having any action that appears vindictive, vengeful, wanton or arbitrary.’
Speaker Trotman also warned that ‘the right to amend is a sacred right…therefore it is not to be used as if you were given the right and empowerment to step across to deliver a blow because you have the right to… that’s not what this is for. It is to ensure that the people are given the best representation possible, not to exact and settle scores…if used like that it is highly unconstitutional… it was never a power given to exact revenge to settle scores.”
The Speaker further stated that it is left to the Finance Minister to accept the Estimates as amended or withdraw them entirely, “since his Government does not accept the amendments and see them as an indication of lack of confidence in the Government. It is for the Government to make a calculated political decision as to whether it can live with the amended Estimates or not. If it cannot, then the decision is obvious.”
In his preceding remarks before he announced his ruling, the Speaker expressed the opinion that Article 171 of the Constitution allows “the reduction by this House on any Bill or Motion introduced by the Minister responsible for Finance, any other Minister of Government or any Member of the National Assembly.
The actual ruling stated:
1. The Constitution of Guyana is, as in every constitution, the embodiment of the nation’s fundamental principles and provides philosophical and guiding underpinnings of the State. It is through enabling and constitution provisions are given efficacy and effect. In this regard the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act and standing orders of the National Assembly are the enabling legislation to give effect to the provisions of 171: 2 (a) and (b); articles 217 and 218 of our constitution.
2. The provisions of standing order 76 do not in my considered opinion collide with, but rather complement articles 171, 217 and 218 of the constitution.
- Rules of procedures for the passing of finance bills are written and enabling laws that cannot be ignored or circumvented conveniently.
- The political system practiced in Guyana does not negatise the authority of the National Assembly to amend Bills and Motions, including those dealing with public finance.
- The National Assembly of the Parliament of Guyana HAS the power to amend by reducing only the estimates of expenditures submitted by the Minister responsible for finance.
- The National Assembly has the option of rejecting the entire budget or accepting the entire budget with or without amendments.
- The power to amend cannot be used capriciously, intradicously, whimsically, and/or wantonly.
- The Motion submitted in the name of the Hon. Member Mr. Ramjattan on the 12th April, 2013 and placed on Notice Paper No. 179 of the same date is properly before the National Assembly and can be considered in and by the Committee of Supply.
- The aforesaid Motion is compliant and not in collision with Article 171 (2b) of the Constitution and the Standing Orders of the National Assembly.
Leader of the Opposition David Granger has expressed satisfaction with the ruling delivered, while Leader of the AFC Khemraj Ramjattan noted it as a landmark ruling.
The consideration of the Estimates scheduled to begin on Monday was delayed as the Speaker chose to address the issue before the Committee of Supply began the consideration of the allocations.
During the arguments made in the House on Monday, Government had strongly relied on last year’s preliminary ruling by the acting Chief Justice Ian Chang that the National Assembly had a right to approve the budget or reject it. But Trotman has since stated that there is no compulsion or duty on the House to accept any ruling by the High Court, a view which the Government feels is a violation of the laws of Guyana and of the Judiciary which they claim has a supervisory oversight of the Assembly.
Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh had explained that the 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.”
Attorney General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall in his argument had stated that the Opposition was 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 reiterated 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.