Govt’s move to judiciary intervention for budget cut reversal
– In effort to retain jobs, continue development
For approximately two decades, the PPP/C has worked unremittingly to reverse the destruction and devastation visited upon Guyana and Guyanese by the former PNC regime, with magnificent success, with socio-economic development in this country poised to catalyze dramatically within the immediate future, from a base laid by the unrelenting efforts of former president, Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, who is now aptly referred to as ‘The architect of modern Guyana’. But the gains in the nation seem today to instead be on the brink of a downward trend as the government of the  newly elected Donald Ramotar administration found itself in a quandary when the PPP/C lost its parliamentary majority  to a vengeful joint opposition in the November 2011 general and regional elections.
The ludicrous irony of persons who had no inputs into Guyana’s wealth creation, even those who destroyed Guyana and left it a deeply indebted country, arrogating to themselves the right to abrogate that wealth disposition to the nation and drive the workers of the country into joblessness, has sent shockwaves rippling throughout the country as the implications of the budgetary cuts slowly sink into the unbelieving minds of the nation.
Even the private sector is distressed because, apart from other constraining factors, disposable incomes would be severely reduced in many families and government-run institutions, thus hampering purchasing power, with severe, deleterious ripple effects on the business community.
There was no logic to the madness as the opposition wielded its Sword of Damocles on the painstaking work of the Finance Minister, his supporting aides, and the various stakeholders in the nation’s economy.
The stunned disbelief of government MPs was replicated in the faces of even opposition media operatives who could not believe the socio-economic dislocations the opposition collective was prepared to visit upon the nation, merely for vindictive spite, and for showing the government, in Granger’s own words, “who is boss”.
The Amerindian communities and persons who would suffer, with many losing their jobs as a consequence of this irrational budgetary massacre, was described as “collateral damage” by Khemraj Ramjattan.
However, this should not have been an unexpected eventuality when the joint opposition determinedly, exulting in its collective power vested through its one-vote/one-seat majority during the earlier sitting, when supplemental financial paper No. 7 was laid in the National Assembly, voted against its passage, thus leaving incomplete the country’s accounting records, which would be recorded as unresolved in the AG’s audit reports for the budget agencies in which the monies had been spent.  According to legal and financial experts, this has never before happened in any other part of the world.
And those monies were spent on unforeseen expenses while the government had to continue its functionality while Parliament was prorogued to facilitate general and regional elections.  The business of the state did not come to an abrupt halt during that period.  The constitution makes provision for government to continue its work in such instances, and for the consequential supplemental papers to be laid in the National Assembly when next it convenes.
That supplemental financial paper shockingly did not gain passage through the recalcitrant power-drunkenness of the joint opposition; which did not care that the monies were spent for contractual financial obligations in preparatory work for the specialty hospital; flood relief and interventions in D&I; retroactive increases for public servants and joint services ranks; expenses for police ranks who were in lying during the elections period; funding for the extended registration period, and other such expenses in the nation’s interest.
The law allows  monies to be spent to  facilitate smooth running of the country and for the Finance Minister to lay these financial supplemental papers for passage in the next sitting of the National Assembly, which is merely a ceremonial requirement for record-keeping purposes.  The refusal of passage of the supplemental, as aforementioned, would leave gaps in the accounting records of the country because they cannot form part of the accounting records of the Auditor-General, which is unprecedented in any other part of the world, according to experts consulted by this newspaper.
But the catastrophic consequences to national development that would be occasioned by the ruthless budgetary cuts cannot prevail, because of the severe, negative socio-economic impacts on the people of the country; and thus the government was constrained, in the face of the collective opposition’s merciless recalcitrance, to move to the courts to seek rectification and a reversal, or a nullification of the opposition’s budgetary cuts.

GOV’T SEEKS JUDICIAL REVIEW OF BUDGETARY CUTS
Government has therefore moved to the High Court to have the approximate $21 billion cuts to the 2012 national budget by the parliamentary opposition judicially reviewed.
The Administration is seeking to have the reduction of the estimates and revenues by the Committee of Supply, particularly as it relates to the Office of the President, Guyana Power and Light Inc., Government Information Agency, National Communications Network, Guyana Elections Commission, Information Communications Technology and other affected agencies, declared an abrogation of the doctrine of separation of powers, unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void and of no legal effect.
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, prepared the writ, which also seeks to empower Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh to make withdrawals from the Contingencies Fund in accordance with Article 220 of the Constitution, which arrogates
to Parliament the powers to authorise the Minister of Finance to take advances from the Contingencies Fund for urgent and unforeseen expenditure for which no other provision exists.
An ex parte application was submitted by way of an affidavit for Interim Orders as the Administration seeks to obtain a Conservatory Order from the High Court. The affidavit in support was set out by Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon, who is responsible for the management and general administration of the Office of the President and assists in the execution of executive decisions and policies.
The affidavit pointed to Article 218 of the Constitution of Guyana, which states that, in short, it is the exclusive responsibility of the Executive to prepare and lay before the National Assembly the Annual Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure for each financial year, for its approval or disapproval. Dr. Luncheon noted however, that no power resides in the National Assembly, either in the Committee of Supply, or at all, to move an amendment to reduce any aspect of the Annual Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure laid by the Minister of Finance, and certainly, the National Assembly has no power whatsoever, in proposing a new or different sum, or any sum at all.
On these grounds, the administration is charging that the two motions moved by Mr Khemraj Ramjattan and Mr Carl Greenidge, which sought to reduce the national budget, and proposed different sums instead, amounted to an arrogation of powers in addition to  usurpation of a function which exclusively resides in the Executive, thereby abrogating the doctrine of separation of powers.
The Cabinet Secretary in the affidavit added that “in respect of the affected agencies, the National Assembly, and not the Executive, presented the Annual Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure for the year 2012, a situation not provided for, nor contemplated by, the Constitution in any form or fashion.”
The affidavit further explained that under the Constitution of Guyana the National Assembly has only the power to approve or disapprove of the national budget, in its entirety.
As such, all reductions to the budget were ultra vires the Constitution and the jurisdiction and authority of the National Assembly.
The financial strangulation of the Executive, the affidavit noted, will severely and irreversibly prevent the discharging of functions in the manner provided for and contemplated by the Constitution, and/or legislation, resulting not only in constitutional chaos, but the Executive’s inability to govern and administer the affairs of the nation in accordance with the provisions of and in the manner contemplated by the Constitution.
Dr. Luncheon also stated quite clearly in his affidavit that the financial resources of the State are more than adequate to meet the original Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure for 2012, as laid in the National Assembly by the Minister of Finance.
He has called on the High Court to ensure that the balance of convenience, justice and national interest weighs heavily in favour of the grant of the Orders sought, whilst giving the assurance that “there is no harm, damage or injustice which will accrue if the Order sought herein is granted, and on the other hand, if they are refused, constitutional chaos, which jeopardises the nation’s interest, is a likely consequence.”

AG responds to opposition protests at government’s move to court
The opposition collective is vehemently protesting this move by the government and Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, who has expressed ‘profound regret’ at remarks made by the Speaker of the House and AFC leader, Raphael Trotman in a press release.
The Attorney General said that the pillars on which our legal system rests ensures that all are equal in the eyes of the law, and this applies to the ordinary citizen, the executive government and the National Assembly.
In his press release, Speaker Raphael Trotman made thinly veiled threats, stating that the government’s resort to the High Court points “to the grave and gathering danger of a constitutional crisis which has the potential to assume proportions, the likes of which the nation has never seen, and may be unable to handle.”

In response, the AG stated that …”the right to seek judicial redress against any perceived legal wrong or constitutional impropriety is one that is deeply rooted and cherished in our jurisprudence and legal system. The rule of law which ensures that all are equal in the eyes of the law and therefore, are subject to the legal process, are all fundamental pillars upon which the edifice of our legal system rests. They apply to the ordinary citizen of this land, the executive government and the National Assembly, alike. Therefore, if there is any violation of the law or the Constitution, any one aggrieved must have unhindered access to our courts for redress. It is in this context that the Executive’s recourse to legal proceedings must be viewed. It is unfortunate that the Honourable Speaker of the National Assembly perceives it through a different prism.
“The Executive Government’s simple contention is that the National Assembly has acted beyond, ultra vires, and in breach of the Constitution, has usurped the functions of the Executive and has violated the doctrine of separation of powers upon which our Constitution is constructed, and it is seeking legal redress which it is constitutionally and democratically entitled to do. It is our view that the National Assembly, like every other creature of the Constitution, must act and function in the manner provided for and contemplated by the Constitution. In this instance, it is our considered view that it has not.
“It is also quite unfortunate that the Honourable Speaker, an attorney-at-law, has seen it fit to conclude that the very decisions of the National Assembly which are the subject of the legal challenge are “legitimate” and that the challenge itself is “unconstitutional”, when these are the very issues that are before the court for the court’s determination. By so doing, the Honourable Speaker himself has violated certain trite and axiomatic legal principles.
Needless to say,  the executive remains committed to a process which would achieve consensus and avoid litigation.

Premises on which gov’t seeks legal redress
The defendants in the action are Raphael Trotman, in his capacity as Speaker of the National Assembly, David Granger, in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition, and Dr. Ashni Singh, in his capacity as Minister of Finance.

The Plaintiff claims against the defendants, jointly and severally are:-
(1) A Declaration that the reduction of Estimates of the Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana for the year 2012, by the Committee of Supply of the National Assembly on the 26th April, 2012, in respect of line-item 012 – Presidential Advisory (Cabinet and Other Services), Account Code and Description 6116 – Contract Employees and 6284 – Other from GYD$296,959,000.00 to GYD$147,000,000.00 and from GYD$104,243,000.00 to GYD$24,200,000.00 is an abrogation of the doctrine of separation of powers, unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void and of no legal effect.

(2) A Declaration that the reduction of Estimates of the Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana for the year 2012, by the Committee of Supply of the National Assembly on the 26th April, 2012, in respect of line-item 031 Ministry Administration, Account Code and Description 6321 – Subsidies and Contributions to Local Organisations from GYD$6,724,352.00 to GYD$6,499,933.00 is an abrogation of the doctrine of separation of powers, unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void and of no legal effect.

(3) A Declaration that the reduction of Estimates of the Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana for the year 2012, by the Committee of Supply of the National Assembly on the 26th April, 2012, in respect of line-item 031 Ministry Administration, Account Code and Description – 3401000 Low Carbon Development from GYD$18,394,650,000.00 to GYD$1.00 is an abrogation of the doctrine of separation of powers, unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void and of no legal effect.

(4) A Declaration that the reduction of Estimates of the Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana for the year 2012, by the Committee of Supply of the National Assembly on the 24th April, 2012, in respect of line-item 011 Administrative Services, Account Code and Description – 6321 Subsidies and Contributions to Local Organisations from GYD$918,719,000.00 to GYD$707,149,000.00 is an abrogation of the doctrine of separation of powers, unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void and of no legal effect.

(5) A Declaration that the reduction of Estimates of the Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana for the year 2012, by the Committee of Supply of the National Assembly on the 24th April, 2012, in respect of line-item 011 Administrative Services, Account Code and Description – 6321 Government Information Agency from GYD$130,398,000.00 to GYD$1.00 and Account Code and Description 3400700 from GYD$15,000,000.00 to GYD$1.00, is an abrogation of the doctrine of separation of powers, unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void and of no legal effect.

(6) A Declaration that the reduction of Estimates of the Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana for the year 2012, by the Committee of Supply of the National Assembly on the 24th April, 2012, in respect of line-item 011 Administrative Services, Account Code and Description – 6321 National Communications Network from GYD$81,172,000.00 to GYD$1.00 and Account Code and Description 4502100 from GYD$65,000,000.00 to GYD$1.00, is an abrogation of the doctrine of separation of powers, unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void and of no legal effect.

(7) A Declaration that the reduction of Estimates of the Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana for the year 2012, by the Committee of Supply of the National Assembly on the 24th April, 2012, in respect of line-item 011 Administrative Services, Account Code and Description 1212000 Information & Communications Technology from GYD$6,750,000,000.00 to GYD$6,580,000,000.00, is an abrogation of the doctrine of separation of powers, unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void and of no legal effect.

(8) A Declaration that the reduction of Estimates of the Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana for the year 2012, by the Committee of Supply of the National Assembly on the 24th April, 2012, in respect of line-item 011 Administrative Services, Account Code and Description 1212000 – Minor Works from GYD$95,000,000.00 to GYD$1.00, is an abrogation of the doctrine of separation of powers, unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void and of no legal effect.

(9) A Declaration that the reduction of Estimates of the Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana for the year 2012, by the Committee of Supply of the National Assembly on the 24th April, 2012, in respect of line-item 112 Elections Administration, Account Code and Description 6293 Refreshment and Meals from GYD$53,700,000.00 to GYD$27,000,000.00, and Account Code and Description 6294 – Other from GYD$902,800,000.00 to GYD$403,000,000.00, is an abrogation of the doctrine of separation of powers, unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void and of no legal effect.

(10) A Declaration that the reduction of Estimates of the Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana for the year 2012, by the Committee of Supply of the National Assembly on the 24th April, 2012, in respect of line-item 021 Prime Minister’s Secretariat, Account Code and Description 6321 – Guyana Power and Light from GYD$6,000,000,000.00 to GYD$5,000,000,000.00, is an abrogation of the doctrine of separation of powers, unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void and of no legal effect.

(11) An Order vacating and/or setting aside the reduction of the Estimates of the Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana for the year 2012, put and carried in the Committee of Supply of the National Assembly and the National Assembly, on the 24th and 26th days of April, 2012, in respect of the matters more fully set out in Schedule A, hereto attached.

(12) That the third-named Defendant be at liberty to make advances/ withdrawals from the Contingencies Fund, pursuant to Article 220 of the Constitution, for the purpose of restoring the funds to the Agencies listed in Schedule A hereto attached, as originally budgeted in the Estimates of the Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana for the year 2012.

(13) Such further or other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

(14) Costs

It is the fervent prayer of all those ordinary Guyanese citizens whose lives and livelihoods have been dislocated and/or threatened by the joint opposition’s budgetary cuts that government’s suit in the court prevails in this instance, because the consequences may send this nation’s socio-economic graphs plummeting on a downward spiral once more.