PRESIDENT Donald Ramotar yesterday addressed the ruling of the National Assembly’s Speaker, Raphael Trotman, on the referral of Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh to the Parliamentary Privileges Committee.

And he contends that it is a “strange ruling” since there is no question on the constitutionality and legality of the action, particularly given that Chief Justice (ag.), Ian Chang pronounced on the matter in 2012, and monies

cut from the Budget were restored in that year, as well as in 2013.
He said: “The Parliament went through this process in 2012 and 2013, so this is not something new. The Speaker himself participated in this process in 2012 and 2013, along with other members of the National Assembly.”
The Speaker’s ruling was in response to a motion moved by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Member of Parliament (MP), Carl Greenidge, who is claiming a breach of constitutional powers, which govern spending of public funds.

The combined Opposition is contending that the Finance Minister violated the law by spending monies disapproved by the Combined Opposition during the 2014 Budget debates, as reflected in a $4.6B Statement of Excess he has tabled in the National Assembly on June 19 last. The financial paper restored monies that were disapproved by the combined Opposition.

INTERPRETATION IS CLEAR
Greenidge relied on Article 217 of the Constitution as the basis of support for his motion.
However, Government is contending that Article 218 provides for monies to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund outside of the limits imposed by Article 217; in other words, Article 217 sets out the general rule and Article 218, the exceptions to that rule. That is precisely why the wording of Article 218 supercedes the words of Article 217.
The President stressed that the interpretation given by the Chief Justice (ag.) is clear and reflects the above stated contention.
Mr. Ramotar said: “There is no question on the constitutionality and legality of the action (the spending) taken. These are things that were ruled on in 2012…we

have always been working legally and within the framework of our Constitution.
“I found the ruling rather strange, because the Speaker participated in this process two years in a row…the Opposition likes to talk about the rule of law and working within the confines of the rule of law, but we have a decision from the constitutional court on this matter, yet we have a ruling.”
The Head of State added that the Court has the final say on the interpretation of the Constitution.
“The AG (Attorney-General) is an authority on this regard and the other party, which has the final ruling, is the court. It is not a question of who I consult, of consultation, because these are things that have happened before,” he said.
Mr. Ramotar also rejected the assertion that the Executive is trying to invoke the power of court to upset rulings and decisions of the National Assembly.
He said: “This is a complete misrepresentation. All three branches of Government operate within the framework of the Constitution. The Constitution is the overarching body in all of this (what we do) and it is this that recognises the roles of the three branches of Government. It is the role of the Court to interpret the Constitution to say Parliament and the Executive is acting (in accordance)…this is no question of us using one branch against another. This is total nonsense. It is absolute nonsense.”

IMPORTANT RESTORATIONS
According to the President, the $4.6B, which is being challenged, represents sums that were cut from the 2014 Budget, but were restored, given their importance.
“Minister Singh was not acting on his own-this was a decision of Cabinet, which I chair,” Mr. Ramotar posited.
Included in the $4.6B Paper is the full return of $6.1B to the Office of the President. The allocation, for current expenditures, included monies for the Government Information Agency (GINA) and the National Communications Network (NCN).
Also, the sum of $450M has been returned to the President’s office for capital expenditures under the Administrative Services category.
A portion of the capital expenditures under the Ministry of Finance’s policy and administration has also been returned, and includes $424M for the Low-Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) programmes; $225M for the University of Guyana’s student loan funds; and $67M for the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA).
The Amerindian Development Fund’s $303M allocation has been returned to the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs, as has the $359.8M for the Cheddi Jagan International Airport (CJIA)’s expansion project.

GOOD NEWS
When asked, the President welcomed the indication that the Opposition will also move to the court to have the $4.6B spending addressed.
“It is good news that he is going to the court, because this is the proper place to go. This is where he (the Opposition Leader, Brigadier (rtd.) David Granger, should go,” the President stressed.
The $4.6B Statement of Excess is the fourth 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. To date, in the 10th Parliament, of the four Statements of Excess that have been tabled, 58 per cent of what was considered has been approved by the combined Opposition.
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 monies 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.”
Additionally, 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)