APNU ‘constitutional crisis’ a pretence at profundity – AG Nandlall
Attorney General Anil Nandlall
Attorney General Anil Nandlall

WITH unsupported speculations on a ‘constitutional crisis’ by the combined Opposition, the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Mr. Anil Nandlall, has announced that such ramblings are a “pretence at profundity” – they amount to nothing. 

“The term ‘constitutional crisis’ has been used by politicians with discernible frequency in recent times. In my view, the reason is either it is a pretence at profundity or an expression of paranoia; or worse yet, both,” he said.
Nandlall referenced the APNU statement, dated June 27, which accused the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) administration of “provoking a constitutional crisis and according to the statement, this provocation manifests itself in three instances:
* The restoration by the Finance Minister of monies which the joint opposition withheld their approval from during the budgetary process in the National Assembly;
* The resort by the Attorney – General to the High Court challenging certain actions taken by the Opposition in the National Assembly on the ground of their unconstitutionality; and
* The withholding by the President of his assent to Bills piloted by the Opposition in the National Assembly.
“In each of the above processes, the Government acted in conformity with express provisions of the Constitution. How, therefore, can the resort to constitutionally authorised processes result in the provocation of a constitutional crisis is a matter which only those who are articulating this novel concept can explain,” the AG said.

“In expending the monies as he did, and laying in the National Assembly a Statement of Excess of the sums spent, the Minister of Finance has acted in accordance with, and, in obedience of the letter and spirit of Article 218 (3).”- AG Anil Nandlall

LAWFUL RESTORATION
Nandlall stated that the Constitutional grounds for justifying the restorations were drawn from Article 218 (3) of the Constitution.
Article 218 (3) of the Constitution provides that: “If in respect of any financial year it is found –
“(a) that the amount appropriated by the ( A ) Appropriation Act for any purpose is insufficient or that a need has arisen for expenditure for a purpose for which no amount has been appropriated by that Act ; or
“(b) that any monies have been expended for any purpose in excess of the amount appropriated for that purpose by the Appropriation Act or for a purpose for which no amount has been appropriated by that Act, a supplementary estimate or, as the case may be, a statement of excess showing the sums required or spent shall be laid before the National Assembly by the Minister responsible for Finance … ”
The Constitutional provision states that a supplementary estimate or, as the case may be, a statement of excess, showing the monies required or monies spent by the Finance Minister shall be laid to the National Assembly, if:
(a) Monies originally approved by the Appropriation Act, for any reason, are insufficient or that a need has arisen which requires monies to be spent that had not been provided for previously; or
(b) Any monies have been spent that is more than the amount which was initially provided for, or in the case where no monies had initially been provided for.
“In expending the monies as he did, and laying in the National Assembly a Statement of Excess of the sums spent, the Minister of Finance has acted in accordance with, and in obedience of the letter and spirit of Article 218 (3),” the AG said.

“… (It is a) legal right, whose invocation can never result in a constitutional crisis. In fact, and to the contrary, it is the type of conduct which engenders greater constitutionality.” – AG Anil Nandlall

He noted too that claims put forward by AFC Vice Chairman, Mr. Moses Nagamootoo were made “in a greater state of confusion” than the APNU.
Nandlall admonished Nagamootoo for his inability to establish the fundamental difference between the Contingencies Fund and the Consolidated Fund.
“The Alliance For Change, through its Vice Chairman, Mr. Moses Nagamootoo, is even in a greater state of confusion than the APNU on this issue. Based upon reports in the press, Mr. Nagamootoo is still grappling to understand the distinction between the Contingencies Fund and the Consolidated Fund- a distinction which is wholly irrelevant to this issue,” the AG declared.

RESORT TO THE HIGH COURT
Regarding the resort to the High Court, Nandlall noted that a resort to the High Court to complain about a constitutional breach is a legal right.
He said, “Any law student would know that the High Court is the guardian of the Constitution and anyone who feels that the Constitution is being infringed, or is likely to be infringed, can approach the Court for appropriate redress.
“… (It is a) legal right, whose invocation can never result in a constitutional crisis. In fact, and to the contrary, it is the type of conduct which engenders greater constitutionality.”
President Donald Ramotar, at a news conference on Saturday at State House, made similar assertions.
He made clear that “there is a lot of talk of unconstitutionality of it, and while I’m always reluctant to put motive to some of these attacks and criticism, I am tempted this time to question why this issue has arisen”.
Mr. Ramotar, citing both the Constitution and the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003, reaffirmed, “It is clear that all the money that has gone back to the National Assembly is covered by the Constitution”.

“It requires no particular acuity of reasoning to see that the Constitution confers upon the President the freedom to withhold his assent from any Bill.” – AG Anil Nandlall

The President noted that it is unclear why the combined opposition would deem the replacing of these monies as being unconstitutional when, “In 2012, and 2013, we did exactly the same thing and the Opposition voted for many of them in the National Assembly.”
“The money that we are putting back into the system, these monies are the UG [University of Guyana] student loan subvention, I don’t know if it is [so] unjustified that they are ready to vote that out”, the President said, adding, “All this noise that they are making really seems to be some sinister purpose that they have in mind to be making these claims.”
With utmost confidence in the constitutionality of the action, the President mounted a call to the Opposition to let the Constitutional Court be the determining factor in whether the decision was unconstitutional. He said, “If the opposition has any objections, then let them take us to the court…let the court determine if it is constitutional or not.”

CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM
On the third issue, the President’s non-assent to Bills, Nandlall cited Article 170 (2) of the Constitution.
Article 170 (2) states that: “When a Bill is presented to the President for assent, he shall signify that he assents or that he withholds assent.”
The AG said, “It requires no particular acuity of reasoning to see that the Constitution confers upon the President the freedom to withhold his assent from any Bill.”
Additionally, he met on June 11 with APNU’s Basil Williams, for the second time, on the issue of the non-assented bills, but told the Guyana Chronicle that much progress was not made during the meeting, the second of its kind, as it was an “emasculated” process.
“The meeting was held with a view to identifying the areas of contentions and take them back to our respective principals (leadership) who will explore the possibility of a resolution of those areas of contentions with the ultimate objective of having those Bills re-tabled in the National Assembly and passed with the Government’s support and eventually receiving Presidential assent,” Nandlall had said.
The AG stated that the first meeting on June 9 did not meet much success either, as Mr. Williams indicated that his instructions were simply “to meet with me to discuss the non-assented Bills.”
“I presented to Mr. Williams a collection of all the Bills which would be the subject of our engagement and I explained to him what I understood from my principals, to be the nature, extent, scope and purpose of the said engagement,” he said.
In view of this, as well as the public positions taken by the combined Opposition, Nandlall concluded that the cry of ‘constitutional crisis’ is simply much ado about nothing.

(By Vanessa Narine)

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.