ON August 10, 2012, the National Assembly held its final sitting before proceeding into the first recess of the 10th Parliament. The sitting commenced at 2 pm and concluded approximately 3:30 am the following morning. The main items on the Order Paper were Financial Paper No. 1 of 2012 and Financial Paper No. 2 of 2012. Financial Paper No. 1 was a Statement of Excess and Financial Paper No. 2 was a Statement of Supplementary Provisions.

The background
Both related to financial provisions which were cut by the joint opposition when the national budget was presented in April 2012. Recall that I went to court.  The Court’s ruling was as pellucid as it was emphatic. The cuts were pronounced as unlawful and unconstitutional. At page 17 of his judgment the learned Chief Justice stated:
“… it does appear to the court that it was not permissible for the National Assembly to cut or reduce the estimates of expenditure to any particular figure since, in so doing, the National Assembly was both determining and approving such estimates. If the drafters of the Constitution had wanted the National Assembly to exercise such power, they could  easily have conferred such a power on it in the Constitution in express terms – as was done in India.”and at page 31, “ … In summary, the court finds that the act of the National Assembly in cutting or reducing the estimates of expenditure laid by the Minister of Finance under Article 218 of the Constitution was outside its constitutional remit.”
The Chief Justice further ruled that the Constitution resided the Minister of Finance with the sole power and exclusive responsibility to determine the estimates for public spending based upon his assessment of the needs and the financial exigencies at hand. The learned Chief Justice at page 13, adumbrated the position thus: “… it can readily be seen that it is the Minister of Finance (or other designated Minister) who bears the constitutional responsibility and duty of preparing and laying before the National Assembly the estimates of both revenues and expenditure. This is so because it is the executive who has the constitutional responsibility of managing and piloting the ship of State and, as a matter of practical reality, the administrative machinery for preparing such estimates.”
At this juncture, it is apposite that I remind that the Chief Justice also confirms that the doctrine of separation of power underlies our constitutional structure. At page 17, His Honour posits thus: “…the doctrine of separation of powers undoubtedly inheres in the Constitutional of Guyana – indeed, as it does in democratic States. Even through varying amounts or levels of overlap may be found among the powers of the executive, legislative and judiciary in the Constitutional architecture of such democratic States, the doctrine of separation of powers does exist in and must inform the interpretation of the Constitution….”
Significantly, the learned Chief Justice admonishes that our Constitution contemplates a particular standard and quality of conduct for the National Assembly as it performs its constitutional role in respect of the estimates. In this regard, the Chief Justice interprets and expatiates this role in the following fashion: “…Unsurprisingly, the Constitution does not address or speak to a negative state of affairs such as non – approval by the National Assembly but speaks to a positive state of affairs i.e. approval. Article 218 (2) provides:
“When the estimates of expenditure(other than expenditure charged upon the consolidated Fund by this Constitution or any Act of Parliament) have been approved, a Bill…
This is so because it is inconceivable that the National Assembly as a national institution would cripple executive governance by non – approval of any estimates of expenditure….”

Contumacious conduct
It is against this background and upon this jurisprudential foundation that the decision was made to re-submit these estimates to the National Assembly, a second time, for its approval. When they withheld their approval the first time, they had to their benefit, the ignorance of their constitutional role, function and power. This plea of ignorance cannot be advanced on this occasion. They were recipients of judicial wisdom, guidance and directions. More importantly, this guidance and direction emanated from the judiciary, an organ which the Constitution imbues with the exclusive responsibility not only to guard it, but to ensure that all of its organs discharge their functions in the contemplated manner and to eschew any form of functional trespass and dereliction. Expectedly, in any democracy, it is inconceivable that the National Assembly of a sovereign nation would knowingly act in disregard of and in conflict with a judicial pronouncement of the Chief Justice of that nation. Precedents of such contumacious conduct is simply absent from the civilised world.

Contempt of Court
These sentiments, constitutional percepts and doctrines were all lost upon the National Assembly last Thursday. They were all slaughtered. In an intoxicating binge of power, the majority of one rejected several portions of the two Financial Papers. Funding for the Ethnic Relations Commission was part of  causality. The Chief Justice’s ruling in respect of this entity could not have been clearer. At page 27, His Honour stated: “… Since the Ethnic Relations Commission is an entity whose expenditure is directly charged upon the Consolidated Fund under Article 222 A (a) of the Constitution and it is manifestly obvious that the National Assembly has not performed its constitutional duty of determining a lump sum by way of subvention on the basis of a review  of the annual budget of that entity, the Court sees it fit to order the Minister of Finance to allow payment from the Consolidated Fund such sums as may be necessary  from time to  time for that entity to establish and maintain a secretariat as  mandated by Article 212 B (5) and to perform its constitutional duties as prescribed by Article 212 D – until the determination of this action or until such time as the National Assembly do fix a lump sum by way of subvention …”
This crystal prescription from the learned Chief Justice was flippantly ignored. That it is the principal law-making institution of this land which did so only exacerbates the transgression. This vulgarity marks a descent from contumacious conduct to contempt of court on the part of the National Assembly.
The horse shall be resting for the next two months. During this period of convalescence, one can only hope that it will reflect upon the institutional damage which it has done to the image of the National Assembly. In October, it shall exit the stable. Hopefully at that time, reason will assume its natural seat as the jockey.