.jpg)
At the beginning of the parliamentary session yesterday, government immediately signalled its objection to the proposal by Ramjattan to cut the national budget.
“Not a dollar,” Attorney General Anil Nandlall told the House as he maintained his position that the combined opposition may approve the budget in its entirety or reject it altogether.
Ramjattan, who has piloted the motion to slash the $38B from the budget, did inform the House that it will be crippling, in fact “making destructive this country if we were to disapprove the thing (budget) in its entirety,” hence one premise on which to make amendments, rather than reject the entire thing.
In his opening arguments to the debate, the AFC leader contended that it is the right of parliamentarians in any Westminster democracy to propose and effect changes to the national budget.
This position, however, was vehemently opposed by government’s Chief Whip Gail Teixeira who, in her presentation to the arguments back and forth on the ability of the House to cut the budget, reminded that Guyana’s system is not Westminster but rather a hybrid.
CHIEF JUSTICE ERRED
Ramjattan suggested that if the House was to be denied a right to reduce the estimates in the budget, it would be akin to degutting a human being of its heart.
He said that the ability being proffered by the opposition is what gives the House its ability to scrutinise and have oversight over the public purse.
“I urge that notwithstanding certain interpretations (of the Chief Justice’s ruling) that we cannot cut, that indeed we can, the constitution of Guyana gives us that right.”
Ramjattan suggested that when the Finance Minister presented the motion to the Committee for its approval, it is the right of any member to provide counter motions seeking amendments, albeit within the realms of the rules of the House.
The AFC Leader was adamant that the interpretation as relied on by Attorney General, Nandlall, “is totally flawed.”
According to Ramjattan, the power to approve obviously must mean to amend.
Reckless and misconceived, he called the interpretation,“that we can approve all, but we can’t reduce even by one dollar.”
He said that in England it’s the executive branch that demands money and the House of Commons that grants it.
This, he said, is replicated in Guyana where the demand is made by the executive adding that what is demanded is not necessarily what is granted.
The AFC leader is adamant that both the Chief Justice (ag) of Guyana and the Attorney General Nandlall, erred in their interpretation of the procedures and suggested that at the committee stage “you approve, revise or disapprove.”
BLACKMAIL CRY
A Partnership for National Unity’s (APNU) Finance Spokesperson, Carl Greenidge, who also weighed in on the matter, suggested that power of any Parliament lies in its capacity to control the public purse.
Greenidge conceded that the combined opposition can in no way introduce taxes or incur expenditure by increasing estimates, but that it does not preclude it from reducing the estimates.
He reminded of APNU’s position on the 2013 budget that several sections were in direct violation of the Constitution of Guyana.
According to Greenidge, government is pushing a line, that even “if you don’t like it then you have to bring the whole thing crashing down and perhaps trigger an election.”
This, Greenidge said, is tantamount to “blackmail.”
He said that “those who argue that the House is not empowered to modify the budget are ill informed.”
In fact, according to Greenidge if the opposition cannot cut the budget then “might as well we go home…it makes no sense whatsoever.”
NOT JUST A BUNCH OF NUMBERS
Teixeira reminded the House that in the Guyana context, it is the prerogative of the executive to bring the estimates of required monies based on its overriding responsibility to manage the financial affairs of the nation.
She emphatically reminded the House that a budget is not created simply by hashing together a bunch of figures.
Teixeira spoke too to the amendments proposed by Ramjattan that includes also, the complete removal of certain expenditures, a position that had already been conceded by the opposition, yet proposed in the budget cuts by the AFC Leader.
She said the constitution provides for, and Parliament has to recognise that it is government that presents the estimates and the opposition can interrogate as much as it desires
By cutting, according to Teixeira, it would mean reducing the budget, a position which the constitution clearly does not favour and as adumbrated by the Chief Justice, “what the opposition wants the House to do is not allowed under the constitution and is not being supported by the Chief Justice.”
She maintained that the constitution is saying that the opposition has a right to say ‘yea, nay, decline or stay silent’ but it cannot cut or reduce.
PARAMETERS OF THE MAJORITY
Attorney General, Nandlall, in his fiery opening arguments to the debate firstly said that while the government is not oblivious to the power of a majority, what it is trying to ensure is that the majority stays within the parameters of the constitution
Nandlall said that as leaders in society the legislators in the House must abide with the “fundamental truths and fundamental realities by which we are bound.”
He said what the House was looking to do in the course of the debate on Ramjattan’s motion, is to interpret the ruling made by the Chief Justice.
The ruling, he said, is written in clear English and “we are trying to twist it to suit our political respective ends…it is an affront to the judiciary of our country.”
According to the Attorney General, the role of the judiciary has to be accepted by the legislators irrespective of majority or minority.
Nandlall further argued that while the opposition may not be in agreement with the ruling of the Chief Justice it has to be abided with.
He said that despite the fact the ruling is provisional in nature, this does not diminish its legally binding nature and serves as final, until it is set aside or overruled.
Nandlall told the House that for the Parliament to attempt to act in contravention of the Constitution of Guyana would effectively make such a move null and void.
“Nobody is above the law,” chided Nandlall and said that even the Parliament is not above the laws of Guyana and the constitution.
Nandlall drew reference to a law that had been unanimously approved in the House by the Parliament, but was subsequently thrown out by the then Justice Claudette Singh.
He said that on that occasion the judiciary had found that the law passed in the House was in contravention of the constitution of Guyana and as such was rendered null and void.
PARLIAMENT TO ABIDE WITH CJ RULING
In the same light, he said, the Chief Justice has made his ruling on the matter which the National Assembly will have to abide with.
The sovereignty of Parliament is limited, as suggested by Nandlall, who emphasised that the judiciary is the guardian of the constitution.
“The judiciary is reposed with the power of being the guardian of the constitution, to look at the conduct of the executive, to look at conduct of the parliament and to ensure that there is no violation of that constitution by any agency of the state”
Nandlall also reminded that the ruling by Chang was open to an appeal on many levels but was never challenged by any in the opposition benches.
“They have to go to court if they believe the ruling to be null, void or irregular and not take upon themselves…as long as it exists, it must not be disowned,” said Nandlall and cautioned that the obligation to obey a court ruling is unconditional.
“We can’t seek refuge in conjured up arguments that it is preliminary…it is embarrassing for a lawyer to say that.”
On the matter of the arguments of the opposition relying on the provisions of the parliamentary standing orders to effect cuts to the budget, Nandlall said that if such parliamentary rules are in contravention of the constitution of Guyana then that too is null and void.
RAMKARRAN WAS WRONG
Speaker Trotman, at this point in time interrupted to remind the AG that former Speaker Ralph Ramkarran, had ruled that the Standing Orders qualified as having the weight of the law.
Nandlall maintained his objection to the position adopted saying that Ramkarran was wrong
The AG reminded of the constitutional provisions that stipulate, it is the executive with the President as Head that “shall cause to be prepared and shall lay before house the Estimates”
He said that the House is being asked to approve the estimates and this cannot be misconstrued to mean “amend.”
He said a resort to an oxford dictionary should clear that illusion.
Even a pocket dictionary Nandlall said, would clarify that “approve by no stretch of the imagination in English language could mean amend.”
Nandlall further sought to emphasise that what is before the House are estimates and not a Bill and as such opposition arguments that it can amend any Bill are premature, as the House has not reached the stage of considering the Appropriations Bill
The Appropriations Bill when enacted by the President becomes law that allows for the expenditure from the Consolidated Fund as outlined in the estimates.
It is wholly premature, argues Nandlall and pointed to the Chief Justice’s ruling “that it can be seen that it is the Finance Minister who holds responsibility to prepare and lay estimates.”
This, he says, is so because the constitution clearly outlines that the preparation of the estimates is the role of the executive.
APPROVE OR DISSAPROVE
He said the National Assembly’s role in the process is to provide oversight in its approval or disapproval of the estimates.
Nandlall suggested that for the opposition to reduce or amend estimates it would mean that the House is in fact determining and preparing the estimates.
“If it is that the House has a problem with that, then it is not open for this National Assembly to disagree with the Chief Justice’s ruling.”
Nandlall cautioned that the opposition didn’t have to agree with the ruling of the Chief Justice but rather are bound by it
“If you don’t want to accept the ruling of the court then the whole world will see the opposition saying it is not bound by it…you do so at your own peril,” warned the Minister of Legal Affairs.
Legal spokesman in the APNU fold, Basil Williams, however rejected the notion.
He said “we ought to reject the contention that this House has no authority to reduce a single line item but must reject the entire budget.”
In fact, Williams suggested that the National Assembly is not subordinate to the court and further the court has no jurisdiction to issue any coercive order to the House.
“The fact that the amendments were made, adopted and the appropriation Bill passed in 2012 means that we can cut,” said Williams and suggested that government’s option is limited to re-prepare the Appropriations and take it back to the House.
By the end of the evening’s debate, the House remained polarised in a stalemate with both sides holding fast to their arguments presented.
Speaker Trotman ended the night’s session congratulating the lawyers that had presented arguments to the motion, inclusive of the Attorney General and recommended that they each qualify for ‘silk” meaning the post of senior counsel.
He promised to hand down his ruling on whether the proposed cuts will be accepted and proceeded with when the House reconvenes at 14:00 hrs today
