.jpg)
As such, the Speaker sent out a strong warning to the National Assembly, with specific focus on the AFC, that he will intervene in the work of the Assembly from time to time “to ensure that we don’t move towards having any action that appears vindictive, vengeful, wanton or arbitrary.’
Speaker Trotman also warned that “the right to amend is a sacred right…therefore it is not to be used as if you were given the right and empowerment to step across to deliver a blow because you have the right to… that’s not what this is for. It is to ensure that the people are given the best representation possible, not to exact and settle scores…if used like that it is highly unconstitutional… it was never a power given to exact revenge to settle scores.”
The Speaker further stated that it is left to the Finance Minister to accept the Estimates as amended or withdraw them entirely, “since his Government does not accept the amendments and see them as an indication of lack of confidence in the Government. It is for the Government to make a calculated political decision as to whether it can live with the amended Estimates or not. If it cannot, then the decision is obvious.”
RULING
The consideration of the Estimates scheduled to begin on Monday was delayed as the Speaker chose to address the issue before the Committee of Supply began the consideration of the allocations.
During the arguments made in the House on Monday, Government had strongly relied on last year’s preliminary ruling by the acting Chief Justice Ian Chang that the National Assembly had a right to approve the budget or reject it. But Trotman has since stated that there is no compulsion or duty on the House to accept any ruling by the High Court, a view which the Government feels is a violation of the laws of Guyana and of the Judiciary which they claim has a supervisory oversight of the Assembly.
Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh had explained that the Chief Justice ruled that, “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… 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, that is approval.”
The Chief Justice further stated that 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. Article 218 (2) of the constitution was drafted on the assumption that the National Assembly would approve the estimates.
Minister Singh quoted that court ruling which stated that, “if the National Assembly were to cut or reduce the estimates of expenditure, this would mean that the estimates of expenditure would be as determined and approved by the National Assembly, rather than be determined by the Minister and approved by the National Assembly.”
Attorney General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, in his argument, had stated that the Opposition was trying to twist the Chief Justice’s ruling to suit their own political ends. This, he said, is an affront to the judiciary. He also reiterated that the High Court of Guyana has supervisory jurisdiction over the National Assembly of Guyana.
“The constitution declares itself to be the supreme law of this land, whether majority or minority we must all subscribe to that supremacy,” the AG asserted.
Like Minister Singh, the Attorney General also took great pains to take the House step by step through the Chief Justice’s ruling and also alluded to a number of similar legal rulings of courts in several jurisdictions around the world that have a similar constitutional structure as that of Guyana.
OPPOSITION SATISFIED
Meanwhile, Leader of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), David Granger, expressed, on behalf of the opposition, satisfaction with the ruling. He noted that the opposition did seek an audience with President Donald Ramotar on Monday to ensure that there was no accusation of wantonness or arbitrariness on part of their behaviour and desire to seek a consensual outcome of the budget debate. He advised that they were accommodated by the President, and are meeting him again today.
“I’d like to give you the assurance that the opposition is concerned that the national interest will be placed above partisan interest, and I believe that your ruling today (yesterday) is a landmark ruling for parliamentary democracy in this country,” Granger said.
Leader of the AFC, Khemraj Ramjattan, who submitted the motion for amending the estimates in the budget, described the Speaker’s ruling as “landmark and transformational”. He added that his party hopes the government will abide by the ruling, and not “hustle across to the High Court.”
MUCH ANGST
Trotman pointed out that during consideration of the estimates accompanying the budget last year, the Committee of Supply, by way of a simple majority vote, amended the estimates by removing a total of $20.9B from within various heads of the budget; and after much angst, confusion and distress, the 2012 budget of the government was approved with amendments, and it was unanimously accepted that the Assembly had the power to amend the estimates. He noted that this was done without the matter being put to the ultimate test of being scrutinised by the High Court.
Trotman said the Attorney General, Mr Anil Nandlall, had challenged the validity of amendments passed by the National Assembly, and Chief Justice Mr Ian Chang, SC., had given a preliminary ruling which stated, inter alia, that the Finance Minister had the right to make advances and withdrawals from the Contingencies Fund to restore to the agencies funds originally budgeted in the 2012 budget estimates. He said no further steps have since been taken following the Chief Justice’s provisional ruling, and the court is yet to make a final ruling on the matter.
He advised that, last Friday, notice of the motion for amendments was received by Ramjattan, and on Monday, following a point of order raised by the Attorney General as to whether or not the motion was properly on the Notice Paper for consideration, he invited arguments for and against the motion being introduced.
Nevertheless, the speaker said, there is no burden or duty placed on the House to adopt or enforce rulings of the High Court. He added that he is not convinced that the High Court exercises a supervisory jurisdiction over the National Assembly. “What I believe it can and has a right to do is to review decisions made by the National Assembly to ensure constitutional compliance,” the Speaker said.
Trotman emphasised that the National Assembly would strictly observe the concept of the separation of powers, and the recognition of the fundamental pillar that the National Assembly is in charge of its own procedures.
He highlighted that the Standing Orders provide the only procedure of the National Assembly, and that it cannot be bound by a preliminary ruling of the High Court.
