Understanding what the Chief Justice

really ruled

In the wake of the decision by Chief Justice Ian Chang, there have been comments that range from the ridiculous to those that cause serious-minded people to think about the future of the country. For the first time the government must account for inclusions in the budget or face having a no-vote for certain sections of the budget.
Prior to the ruling by the Chief Justice the opposition with its parliamentary majority opted to use that majority to slash those aspects of the budget that the Finance Minister and those whose appropriation was being challenged.
A government would plan a budget to promote development. However, in recent times the opposition came to believe that the government was as corrupt as any corrupt government. This extent of corruption could see the government voting sums far in excess of what is necessary. The opposition parties believed that the people in the government were siphoning off the excess money.
This belief was not easy to shelve because there were reports of contractors being advised to bid high, then pass an envelope to a Minister or to someone closely associated with the project. In any case, there were substandard works because the contractor insisted on his profit margin and if he had to pass an envelope before the work began then he was going to cut back on material and so fail to honour the specifications of the project.
In 2012 and 2013 the opposition questioned some of the expenditure proposed by the government. For example, one bone was the cost of the Amaila Falls hydroelectric project. The opposition felt that it was too high and in the absence of what they said were unsatisfactory explanations, voted to slash funding for the project.
It was the same with the Specialty Hospital, the Cheddi Jagan Airport Expansion project and funding for the Government Information Agency and National Communications Network. The government objected to the cuts and moved to the courts. The Chief Justice ruled that the cuts were illegal, that the budget was the preserve of the Finance Minister and he was the one to do any cutting or trimming.
This is the bone of contention. The opposition said that surely the Chief Justice is saying that if the opposition objects to an item in the budget they must object to the entire budget. Failure on the part of the government to pass the budget means that the government must call general elections.
There is the view that the Chief Justice has created conditions for a constitutional crisis but on closer examination of the very ruling we come to the position that there might have been over reaction; that people, among them lawyers, might have opted to ignore the happenings in the Committee of Supply
The Chief Justice ruled that the Opposition cannot cut the budget in the National Assembly because the budget is really the estimates presented by the Finance Minister. But this does not preclude the opposition from making their decisions known in the Committee of Supply.
That is where the arguments would take place, where the proposals would be made and where the rejections would occur. In the committee of supplies the opposition would be in a position to make the Finance Minister make whatever adjustments that must be made. If he refuses then the opposition would have no option but to vote down the entire budget.
For one, the belief is that the meeting of the committee of the supply would be more meaningful this year. One would then see how serious the government is about cooperating with the opposition.
When the elections results were made known the diplomatic community simply said that it was the best thing that could have happened to Guyana and they were right. For the first time budget debates are not exercises in futile arguments. They really involve serious questions and answers about the taxpayers’ money.
Above all the people see what really they need to spend on.