THE SPEAKER SHOULD STAND ON THE SIDE OF THE LAW

February 1, 2014, By KNews, Filed Under Features/Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source

The Court has made a final and definitive ruling on the question of the right of the National Assembly to amend the Estimates of Expenditure. This ruling should be respected by the National Assembly because to do otherwise would be to discommode the relationship between the two arms of the government and question the role of the judiciary in settling disputes on questions of law.

The right of the judiciary to determine questions of law has hardly ever been questioned in constitutional democracies. That is a settled right. If either the Executive or the Legislature refuses to adhere to a decision of the judiciary then that affects the comity that should exist between the various arms of the State.

Indeed, Parliament has long recognized that it is the Courts that are responsible for settling disputes on the constitutionality of acts of both the legislature and executive. It is therefore surprising that there should be hesitancy within the National Assembly in complying with a ruling by the Court.

It is for the Speaker, and not the National Assembly, to ensure that the ruling of the Court is complied with. The Speaker was a defendant in the case brought by the Attorney General and it is for him to ensure adherence with the ruling.

He further sits in the position of ensuring lawful procedures are adhered within the National Assembly. The court has deemed the act of amending the Budget to be unlawful and therefore if and when any similar attempt is made to amend the Budget, it is for the Speaker to decide if he will allow for an act that has been deemed unlawful and unconstitutional by the High Court, to be entertained.

It would amount to abdication of his role to determine what is allowable in the National Assembly if the Speaker allows the National Assembly to vote on this issue. Since it is question of what should be allowed to happen, then it is for the Speaker to make that decision and he has to decide not the two sides of the House who are divided on what should happen.

In making his decision, the Speaker should disabuse himself of the idea that the right of the National Assembly to amend the Budget is a long established right. If he does his research he will find that this is far from conclusive.

Much of the confusion has arisen because of what happened in the past when the Estimates were put before the Committee of Supply. The fact that the Committee of Supply considers line for line the Estimates and votes on them has led to the conclusion that in that Committee is reposed the power to cut the Budget.

What needs to be made clear however is that this is the first Parliament in Guyana in which the government does not have a majority.   In previous Parliaments there was no need for any attempt to cut the Budget because this was an impossibility given the government’s majority.

The role of the Committee of Supply is not to amend the Estimates. The National Assembly convenes into the Committee of Supply to consider the Estimates. This allows for these Estimates to be scrutinized and for the Committee to propose changes. It is however for National Assembly and not the Committee of Supply to pass the Appropriation Bill and the Minister of Finance may opt to either consider the proposals voted on in the Committee of Supply, or he may rework his estimates, or he may simply go with his original Estimates. It is for the National Assembly to decide whether they will approve or disapprove the Estimates.

Even if it is assumed that the Committee of Supply has to the power to amend and not simply to propose, the Court has ruled that the Standing Orders of the National Assembly are rules of procedure and not law. Therefore once the Constitution prohibits amendment of the Estimates, rules of procedure cannot take precedence over the highest law of the land.

The Court further ruled that the Estimates cannot be amended except by the Minister of Finance because it is his Estimates. The National Assembly may opt to approve or not approve these Estimates.

The ball is therefore in the Speaker’s Court to determine whether he will allow amendments to the Estimates. It is his call. He has to decide in making that call whether he will stand on the side of the law as determined by the High Court.

It is the ancient prerogative of Parliament to define its powers in relation to the King and the King's courts.

The CJ obviously lacks a clear grasp of our parliamentary tradition and our history going back to the 1200s.

he have a clear idea about money

He apparently does. The Guyanese Parliament possesses all of the sovereign powers of the English Parliament except those powers which are expressly denied it. Cutting the Minister's Estimates is no where in the Constitution as a prohibited power. Our parliament is sovereign. The King-in-Parliament or in this case The President-in-Parliament is supreme but for the clear limitations laid out in the Constitution.

The Guyanese Constitution is totally unlike the American Constitution which is one of enumerated powers. Parliament's powers of 1966 are intact where left untouched by the 1980 Constitution.

the speaker and both opposition parties explained this but the PPP does not want to listen. We are in a Westminster system where tradition and custom over time means a lot. Note this is all the British rely on and the once ruled the world.