–says it is a ‘constitutional incest’
THE motion by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Member of Parliament (MP), Carl Greenidge, to have the Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh, appear before the Parliamentary Privileges Committee has raised questions over the role and impartiality of the Committee.
Attorney-General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, pointed out that Greenidge’s motion is based on the contention that the Finance Minister violated the law by spending monies that were reflected in a $4.6B Statement of Excess.
To this end, he added that given that Greenidge is claiming a breach of constitutional powers, which govern spending of public funds, such a claim should be addressed in a court of law.
NO MOVE TO COURT
Nandlall surmised that with the majority representation on the Committee of Privileges being MPs representing the combined Opposition, there is a greater inclination to move to the Committee, rather than to the court, which is charged with the interpretation of the laws of Guyana and pronouncement of alleged breaches.
The AG said, “There is a fundamental challenge, which this Committee of Privileges will face. It is a fact of public notoriety that the joint Opposition enjoys a majority on all committees in the National Assembly.
“Leading members of both Opposition parties have openly and publicly made statements to the effect that Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh, has violated the law and the Constitution…these very political parties have already in their public statements made a finding of guilt against the Minister.” – AG and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall
“I have no doubt that the Privileges Committee will be similarly constituted. Leading members of both Opposition parties have openly and publicly made statements to the effect that Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh has violated the law and the constitution.
“Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan, Leader of the Alliance For Change, has gone a step further. He alleges that the Minister has committed criminal offences. He has lodged a report with the police. These are the very political parties from whose membership this committee will draw its members.”
The AG pointed out that members of the combined Opposition have already made public statements that definitely pronounce on the actions of the Finance Minister.
“These very political parties have already, in their public statements, made a finding of guilt against the Minister. How they will be able to bring an impartial mind to bear in the deliberations of the committee, in my view, will be a legal impossibility,” he said.
“Based upon the available evidence, there is no way that the principles of natural justice will be accorded to the Minister.” – AG and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall
Nandlall stated that he noted that the Privileges Committee’s ultimate function is to determine whether the Minister has acted properly and to recommend sanctions if he has not, but MPs that sit on that Committee have already made up their minds.
PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE ROLE
Addressing the role of the committee, Nandlall said, “It is in my considered view that the Privileges Committee is a most unsuitable forum to deal with the breaches of the law and the Constitution which have been alleged.”
He pointed out that the Constitution ascribes to the Parliament a law-making function and ascribes to the judiciary the duty and responsibility of interpreting the law made by the Parliament.
“Therefore, it is not the function of the Parliament to make, interpret and enforce the laws it makes. This is the very essence of the separation of powers doctrine. It is to prevent the type of Constitutional incest which we see taking place in the National Assembly,” the AG said.
“It is not the function of the Parliament to make, interpret and enforce the laws it makes. This is the very essence of the separation of powers doctrine. It is to prevent the type of Constitutional incest which we see taking place in the National Assembly.”- AG and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall
Nandlall said, “The principles of natural justice mandate that no person can be a judge in his own cause and every person is entitled to a fair hearing. Based upon the available evidence, there is no way that the principles of natural justice will be accorded to the Minister.”
The AG added that he is unaware of how the combined Opposition can extricate themselves from this conundrum.
“It will be a great travesty if the supreme law-making organ of the State does not comply with such rudimentary principles, such as observance of the rules of natural justice and the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers,” Nandlall said.
LEGAL SPENDING
Nandlall stressed that the Minister of Finance acted within the framework set out in the Constitution, as well as was premised on Chief Justice (ag.), Ian Chang’s final ruling on the National Assembly’s right to cut allocations in the National Budget.
Section 218 (3) of the Constitution states that: “If in respect of any financial year, it is found: (a) that the amount appropriated by the 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 moneys 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 Assembly by the Prime Minister or any other Minister designated by the President.”
To date, in the 10th Parliament, four Statements of Excess have been tabled, 58 per cent of which has been approved by the combined Opposition.
Also, the Parliamentary Standing Order 78 (1), which deals with supplementary estimates of expenditure and statements of excess.
The Order states that: “If in respect of any financial year it is found:- [a] that the amount appropriated by the Appropriation Act for any purpose is insufficient or that a need has arisen for Expenditure for a purpose for which amount has been appropriated by that Act;
“Or [b] that any moneys 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;
“Or [c] that advances have been made from the Contingencies Fund for Expenditure for which no other provision exists, a Minister may present a Paper with the Supplementary Estimate or, as the case may be, the Statement of Excess showing the sums required or spent and that Paper shall be ordered to be printed and shall stand referred to the Committee of Supply without question put and shall be appointed to be considered on a day to be named by the Minister presenting the Paper but not earlier than one (1) day after that on which the Paper was presented.”
In addition to the AG, the Finance Minister also maintains the contention that all public spending advanced by the current Administration has been done within the stated legal parameters and can withstand any level of scrutiny.
(By Vanessa Narine)
