.jpg)
PROCEEDING WITH ESTIMATES
Nevertheless, Government is committed to fulfilling it duty, which includes meeting the constitutional requirement of having a budget in place by the end of April.
“We want to get on with the business of our country, and we are proceeding with the estimates…while we contemplate other steps,” the Prime Minister said.
Government maintains the position that the 2013 budget was carefully crafted after extensive ground work which took into consideration where Guyana is at present, and where it needs to be. This is how successive PPP/C budgets were formulated, which is why the country has been able to record positive economic growth for seven consecutive years since 2006.
COMPLETE AND UTTER CONFUSION
Minister Nandlall said he is fortified in his belief that there is indeed a serious conceptual difficulty in understanding the constitutionally defined role of the National Assembly having regard to its functions and responsibilities.
“In our constitution, the court is the final arbiter (judge) of matters of law and in terms of interpreting the constitution…though it is argued that this Chief Justice’s ruling was not a final ruling, in my humble view that does not in any form or fashion, cause that ruling to lose its efficacy…that institution called the judiciary, under our constitutional construct is the final arbiter on what the constitution says and what is means,” the AG explained.
On one hand the court ruled that that in accordance with the Constitution of Guyana, the National Assembly has no power to cut the estimates; while on the other hand, the legislature (National Assembly) proceeded to pronounce that it has the power to cut in face of a court ruling.
Minister Nandlall called that situation “a complete and utter confusion” since the Parliament is saying one thing, while the court, which is the guardian of the constitution, is saying another.
“That is the conundrum that we find ourselves in…the situation will be compounded further if the Chief Justice is to rule finally on this matter…this will be in collision with the pronouncements made by the Speaker…can the executive take the position that it is not going to be bound by the court?” he questioned.
The AG has already written to the Chief Justice, calling for final pronouncements on the matter, and it is highly unlikely that the latter will depart from what he said in his preliminary ruling. He noted that as legal advisor to the Government, he finds himself in great difficulty in advising the Administration on which pronouncement it should follow.
“When persons arrogate unto themselves, that a court ruling is not binding, then we are heading down the road of anarchy. If tomorrow the entire country takes the position that the Parliament has taken, then this country will be in peril…It is not a matter of cuts or no cuts, it is about exercising powers which they do not have,” the AG emphasised.
STILL HOPEFUL
Meanwhile, the Finance Minister also spoke of the precarious juncture which the Government now faces. He noted that all of the arguments and articles of the constitution that were cited during the debate on Khemraj Ramjattan’s Motion on Monday evening, were not novel since they were all presented to the court when the matter was before the Chief Justice. Therefore, all of the arguments, which informed the Speaker’s ruling, to a large extent, were all subject to judicial scrutiny and pronouncements.
He said that, “we would be and are guided by the court’s ruling…but we are still hopeful that the Opposition will ask questions and consider the information that will be provided to them and that they will vote in favour of progress.”
Speaking to the cuts proposed by the AFC (APNU has made no submission thus far), Minister Singh explained that they are all without merit, and go to the core of several development projects in the country.
“One would shudder to think that the authority which the National Assembly is now vesting itself with, in defiance of the court’s ruling, could now potentially be used to effect cuts that will essentially hinder and harm the development of our country,” the Finance Minister said.
ATTACK ON THE ‘BRAIN’ OF GOV’T
Meanwhile, Minister of Public Works, Robeson Benn spoke of the proposed cuts as an attack to the brain of the Government, since a large sweep of the proposed reductions are aimed at the Office of the President and a number of Ministries including Finance, Public Works and Home Affairs.
For the Public Works Ministry in particular, there is a proposal for the removal of about 85 percent of the funds required to run the engineering department responsible for infrastructural works for the country.
Development projects for which extensive consultations were held such as the Amaila Fall Hydropower access road, Cheddi Jagan Airport Expansion, East Bank Four-Lane and the Specialty Hospital projects, all face being cut, some in their entirety.
“One wonders where this will all end, and if in fact there’s an intention to cripple the development thrust, cripple the economy and to make life and living in our country unsustainable and difficult,” he said.
Minister within the Ministry of Finance, Juan Edghill questioned why the 14 lawyers on the Opposition side, who were in possession of the Chief Justice’s ruling since July last year did not seek to challenge it in the court, which is the final authority in matters related to the constitution.
He said that, “it is clear that this is plain politics, they choose the place where they know they can win because they have the majority of one. In the court of law, what stands out there is not majoritarianism; it’s your arguments.”
He referred to the proposed cut to the allocation of the Board of Industrial Training (BIT) as ill-conceived, since the Opposition continues to accuse the Government of not providing adequate opportunities for youths. This programme has trained thousands of school drop-outs and single parents, making them marketable, so they could provide for themselves and family.
He also lamented that the AFC has proposed cuts long before giving officials the chance to justify or answer questions with regards to their allocations. This, he said, speaks loudly of their vindictiveness.
There are also proposed cuts for projects for which monies were approved by the House last year such as the Amaila Falls access road for which there is a proposed removal of its entire allocation.
“Why approve monies for large projects that will go on for a number of years and then cut funds for the continuation of the projects?” Minister Edghill asked.
On Monday, both sides of the House put forward arguments in defence of their stance; in the case of the opposition, that the National Assembly has the power to cut the estimates, and on the Government side, the court is the final arbiter and the 2012 preliminary Chief Justice’s ruling stands that it has no power to cut. (GINA)
