THE Contingency Fund could only be accessed in cases of emergencies when the Parliament of Guyana is dissolved, Attorney General Basil Williams told the Court of Appeal on Thursday.

His position was a direct response to contentions by Attorney Anil Nandlall, that in the absence of a Cabinet, government could tap into the Contingency Fund to finance General and Regional Elections.

In his oral submissions in the constitutional cases – Attorney General v Christopher Ram and others, and Attorney General v Speaker of the National Assembly and others, Nandlall, the attorney representing the Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, turned the court’s attention to Article 220 of the Constitution.

According to Article 220 (1) “Parliament may make provision for the establishment of a Contingency Fund and for authorising the minister responsible for finance to make advances from that Fund if he or she is satisfied that there is an urgent need for expenditure for which no other provision exists.” Nandlall surmised that finances could be sourced from the Contingency Fund for the holding of elections as a matter of urgency and national importance.

In response to Nandlall, the attorney general told the Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards, and Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud, that the Contingency Fund could only be accessed in cases of emergencies such as natural disasters. Such, he emphasised, must be “unforeseen.”

Rhetorically, the attorney general questioned whether the no-confidence motion, which triggered the need for early elections, was unforeseen.
Williams told the court too, that it is the finance minister who is mandated to determine whether the requisite requirement is reached for accessing the Contingency Fund. He also submitted that the fund ought to be accessed only when the Parliament is dissolved.

The attorney general was, however, reminded by Justice of Appeal Gregory that the position was not supported by an affidavit, and as such, it would not be taken into consideration. In response, the attorney general explained that he was merely responding to the contentions made by Nandlall in his deliberations.

On Thursday, oral submissions were also made by Roysdale Forde, the attorney representing the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) representative Joseph Harmon; Queen’s Counsel, Dr Francis Alexis, and Attorney Maxwell Edwards, all of whom are supporting the government’s position that the no-confidence motion was invalidly passed.

Kamal Ramkarran, Christopher Ram’s Attorney, also made submissions. Senior Counsel Rafiq Khan, who is representing the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr Barton Scotland, has long indicated that his client will abide by the ruling of the court. Decision in these two cases, will be handed down within days.