…cites Constitution and Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003

PRESIDENT Donald Ramotar, in a press conference on Saturday at State House, made the assertion that the restoration of funds by the Finance Minister was perfectly within the provisions of the Constitution.

Mr. Ramotar 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”.
He cited both the Constitution and the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003, and reaffirmed, “It is clear that all the money that has gone back to the National Assembly is covered by the Constitution”.
Additionally, 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.”

“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.”- President Donald Ramotar
Pull quote: “If the Opposition has any objections, then let them take us to the court… Let the court determine if it is constitutional or not.”- President Donald Ramotar

“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 PROVISIONS
President Ramotar cited Article 218 (3) of the Constitution and Section 41 of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act of 2003 as being the grounds for constitutionality of the decisions. The President noted that contrary to errors in the media, these articles “do not contradict each other.”
According to Article 218 (3) of the Constitution, no monies shall be withdrawn from public funds other than the Consolidated fund. It further states that the issuing of those monies must have been authorised by or under “an Act of Parliament”.
Parliament, in 2003, approved the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act. This Act would be regarded as, “an Act of Parliament” according to Article 218 (3) of the Constitution.
Section 41 of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 defines in part one, under the heading “Schedule”, the definition of a ‘Contingencies Fund advance’. Such an advance refers to “an expenditure out of the Consolidated Fund”, which is made according to Section 41 (3) of the Act.
The Contingencies Fund is further defined as a sub-fund established by the Finance Minister, made according to Section 41 (1) of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act. Mentioned in Section 41, the Contingencies Fund is established as a sub-fund of the Consolidated Fund.
Subsection (2) of Section 41 of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003, mandates that the Minister of Finance shall have the sole authority for the release of monies from the Contingencies Fund and this authority is not to be delegated to any other authority.
In order to access the Contingencies Fund, the Minister must satisfy that there is an “urgent, unavoidable and unforeseen need for expenditure”, which the monies from the Contingency Fund will be used for. This urgency, according to paragraph (c) of Section 41 (3), would be justified if withholding the money would otherwise result in “injury to the public interest”.
Considering that part one of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 provided the definition for a ‘Contingencies Fund advance’, Article 41 stipulates that the Minister may approve a Contingencies Fund advance as monies to be spent out of the Consolidated Fund by issuing a drawing right.
Finally, subsection 5 of Section 41 of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 notes that the Minister shall report at the next sitting of the National Assembly on all advances. The report must include the amounts paid, whom they were paid to and the impact of the payment. These advances were presented in the form of first financial paper of 2014, which was provided to the National Assembly on June 19, 2014.
The Act under Section 41 (6) (b) provides that after the National Assembly has approved of the Contingencies Fund advance or advances, and upon the passing of a supplementary appropriation Act, the amount of the advance or advances shall be added back, in the amount of the total authorised, by the National Assembly under subsection (4) to the Contingencies Fund.
Finally, Section 41 (7) provides that once the National Assembly has approved the advance or advances, the Contingencies Fund shall be replenished to the sum of the amounts approved.

(By Derwayne Wills)