Opposition on ‘desperate fishing expedition’ against Dr. Singh
–Constitutional compliance can never violate criminal law

CONTRARY to claims by members of the combined Opposition, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC), the Executive’s exercise of its Constitutional powers can never lead to a Constitutional crisis.

According to Attorney-General (AG) and Minster of Legal Affairs, Mr. Anil Nandlall, “The term ‘Constitutional crisis’ is one that the Opposition banters around because it sounds politically sexy and perhaps misleadingly intelligent. The fact is that this Government has taken no action that breached the supreme law of Guyana but in fact and to the contrary has acted in scrupulous compliance with express provisions of the Constitution.”
He further told the Guyana Chronicle in an invited comment yesterday, “Indeed, if they are so convinced that the Government has acted in violation of the Constitution, then the Constitution itself mandates them to seek legal recourse in the Courts. The daily dose of diatribe in the press will not bring forth the remedy or the recourse for which they clamour.”
He cited as examples of their daily lamentations the brouhaha created in the press in relation to the Finance Minister’s restoration of the Budgetary Cuts, and then laying a Statement of Expenses before the National Assembly, and the President not assenting to some Bills passed by the National Assembly.

‘The term ‘Constitutional crisis’ is one that the Opposition banters around because it sounds politically sexy and perhaps misleadingly intelligent. The fact is that this Government has taken no action that breached the supreme law of Guyana but in fact and to the contrary has acted in scrupulous compliance with express provisions of the Constitution’

“In both instances, the Finance Minister and the President acted in accordance with expressly outlined procedure provided in the Constitution, respectively,” Minister Nandlall said, adding:
“When the Executive exercises the powers that are constitutionally vested in it, we hear screams of constitutional crisis being created. How can a ‘constitutional crisis’ be created by exercising powers that are prescribed by the Constitution?”
To bolster his argument, Minister Nandlall quoted Article 218 (3) of the Constitution which reads:
“The Minister responsible for Finance or any other Minister designated by the President shall cause to be prepared and laid before the National Assembly, before or within ninety days, after the commencement of each financial year estimate of the revenues and expenditure of Guyana for that year.
“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 Minister responsible for finance or any other Minister designated by the President.”

As the Minister went on to say, “Any person who is functionally literate, and who is aware of the facts, would quickly realise that the Minister of Finance acted in conformity with procedure set out in Article 218 (3) above.
“This very provision was interpreted by the Honourable Chief Justice in both of his written rulings in the Budget Cut case. In that case, I requested an Order, directing the Minister of Finance to restore the monies cut from the 2012 Budget. In declining to make the Order against the Minister of Finance, the Chief Justice pointed in his ruling to Article 218 (3), and stated that the discretionary power to restore the monies cut from the Budget is vested in the Minister in Article 218 (3); therefore, it is up to the Minister whether he would exercise the power or not. Were the Court to order him to do so to restore the Budget Cut, the Court would be guilty of usurping the power of the Minister of Finance, which 218 (3) of the Constitution solely resides in him.”

FISHING EXPEDITION
He summed it all up saying: “Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan’s, Mr. Carl Greenidge’s and Mr. Joe Harmon’s rantings must therefore be construed as a desperate fishing expedition against the Minister of Finance, with a hope that they catch something.”
As for Ramjattan’s claim that the Minister of Finance committed a criminal offence, Minister Nandlall said: “Mr. Ramjattan has appointed himself investigator, judge, jury and executioner, all rolled up in one. In all of his wild utterances in the press, he is yet to cite which section of which criminal statute has been contravened by the Minister of Finance.
“As a lawyer, that is the first thing one would expect him to do. In my view, it is simply legally impossible for a person to act in compliance with the Constitution, and by that very action violate the criminal law.”
Wondering aloud whether Mr. Ramjattan was just playing to the public gallery or whether he is serious, the Attorney-General said:
“If he is serious, as a colleague in the legal profession, I can’t help but worry for him. The very Mr. Ramjattan, his Party and the APNU all said nothing when the Minister of Finance, in identical circumstances, did the identical thing in the year 2012 and 2013. Are they now telling the nation that they were asleep for two years?”

DUPLICITOUS
And, charging that the opposition’s cries of “constitutional crisis” were duplicitous, Minister Nandlall said:
“The Opposition voiced the possibility of moving a no-confidence vote against the current Administration, and you did not hear the Government cry ‘constitutional crisis’. It is because it is their constitutional right.
“However, when the Government exercises its constitutional powers, it is met with the hysteric cry of ‘constitutional crisis’. Not a single time have they questioned these acts of alleged gross constitutional violations in the Courts, although they have threatened to do so on innumerable occasions.
“The reason is that they don’t have a case, and they were so advised by those who know better.”

(By Vanessa Narine)