THE Combined Opposition, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC), has met and discussed the likelihood of moving to courts to challenge what they claim is “unconstitutional” spending by Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh.

Leader of the Opposition, Brigadier (Rtd.) David Granger told the Guyana Chronicle Wednesday that this is one of the actions the Parties have in mind.
“There are several routes that we can use… We had a meeting with the AFC, and the route of going to the court is one of the matters we discussed,” he said.
The Opposition’s contention is that Minister Singh violated the law by spending monies they disapproved of during the 2014 Budget debates, as reflected in a $4.6B Statement of Excess he tabled in the National Assembly on June 19 last.

The tabling of the financial paper restored monies that were disapproved by the combined Opposition. The fourth Statement of Excess since the start of the 10th Parliament, Financial Paper 1/2014, tabled in the National Assembly on June 19, is yet to be considered by the House at the next sitting. It reflects spending from January 1, 2014 to June 16, 2014.
Following the tabling of the financial paper, APNU’s Shadow Finance Minister, Mr. Carl Greenidge, moved a Motion to have Dr. Singh brought before a Privileges Committee, since his action constituted “a constitutional crisis”, in that the sums included on the $4.6B Statement of Excess represent expenditure not approved by the National Assembly.
Greenidge is adamant that the issue is an important one, hence the move to have Dr. Singh appear before a Privileges Committee to be sanctioned.

‘There are several routes that we can use…We had a meeting with the AFC, and the route of going to the court is one of the matters we discussed’ — Leader of the Opposition, Brigadier (Rtd.) David Granger

PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE MOVE

As Granger observed, taking the matter to the Privileges Committee is not just one of the routes that can be used to address the combined Opposition’s concerns, but it’s also intended to send a clear signal to Dr. Singh and the Speaker of the House, Mr. Raphael Trotman.
“It depends on the course with which that initiative or that device is proceeded with,” he said, adding: “The important thing is that Dr. Singh must get a warning… Once this happens, the Speaker will be able to use the findings of that Committee to prevent measures being brought before the National Assembly, which are unlawful and unconstitutional.
“It is important, because it is a signal to the Speaker, and it is a signal by the Speaker that he will not allow the consideration of spurious financial papers, like the one we have before us.”
Asked for a comment on the matter, Trotman made it clear that it is not the function of the Privileges Committee to determine whether or not the Minister has acted constitutionally or unconstitutionally.
“We can only see whether he acted with or without the concurrence of the National Assembly,” the Speaker said, “and that is what we can do to see whether he abused any privileges or

not. That is what I am looking at right now.”

‘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’ — AG and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall

As he went on to explain, at the level of the Privileges Committee, a Member of Parliament (MP) can be subject to a variety of decisions. “In the past, an MP may be admonished; a member may be reprimanded… The proper sanction against MPs in the Privileges Committee is to have the member suspended; but since Independence, we have not had any member suspended,” Trotman said.

GO TO COURT
Attorney-General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, in a prior interview with the Guyana Chronicle had indicated that a move to a court of law will be the better forum to address the expressed concern of an alleged “unconstitutional” act.
He 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.
According to the AG, “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.
“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.”
In pointing out that members of the combined Opposition have already made public statements that definitely pronounce on the actions of the Finance Minister, the Attorney-General said:
“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.”

.
LEGAL SPENDING

Responding to the furor over spending, the Finance Minister has maintained that all public spending advanced by the current Administration has been done within the stated legal parameters, and can withstand any level of scrutiny.
According to Section 218 (3) of the Constitution: “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.”
Of the four Statements of Excess that have been tabled in the 10th Parliament to date, 58 per cent of the lot has been approved by the combined Opposition. This is inclusive of the Parliamentary Standing Order 78 (1), which deals with supplementary estimates of expenditure and statements of excess.
The Order at reference 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 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)