MINISTER of Legal Affairs and Attorney General (AG), Anil Nandlall has said the Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, in ruling that the parliamentary opposition has the power to amend the estimates in the 2013 budget has conferred upon himself the jurisdictional freedom to depart from a ruling of the High Court, and that that is a power which he simply does not have.

During a press conference hosted by the People’s Progressive Party PPP) at Freedom House headquarters yesterday, Nandlall stated that the Speaker’s ruling has presented the nation with what he termed a “constitutional enigma.”

QUOTE: “How we will unravel this enigma we are not sure…we are still busy with the consideration of the estimates, but what I know for sure is that the constitutional anomaly which the Speaker’s ruling has created has far and deep reaching implications and ramifications way outside of the budgetary process.”-AG

“How we will unravel this enigma we are not sure…we are still busy with the consideration of the estimates, but what I know for sure is that the constitutional anomaly which the Speaker’s ruling has created has far and deep reaching implications and ramifications way outside of the budgetary process,” he said.
Nandlall advised that recourse will have to be taken in the court to rectify the constitutional errata. According to him, this is creating an issue where one arm of the state has confined and defined the responsibility and almost violently encroaching into the domain of another.
He emphasised that this is a state of affairs which cannot be allowed to continue in a democracy and that within the shortest possible time, redress has to be sought to rectify that decision of the speaker.
Responding to a question posed by a reporter, the AG noted that the Standing Orders seem to confer the power to reduce the estimates in the budget. However, he stated that another dilemma on the Speaker’s part is that he has elevated the Standing Orders beyond a status which they ought to enjoy, adding that Standing Orders of any parliament are merely the rules that regulate the procedures of the House.
“The constitution is supreme and even if the laws of the land collide with the Constitution, the Constitution prevails over those laws to the extent of those inconsistencies. The Speaker fell into error when he interpreted the perception of those Standing Orders as part of the standing orders of our country, he interpreted that to elevate it to the position of law,” he asserted.
Nandlall pointed out that Trotman had referred to a section of the constitution which simply said that the Standing Orders of England and the standing orders of the colony of Guyana shall continue to be the Standing Orders of independent Guyana.
“By no stretch of the imagination can that result in the catapulting of standing orders from where they are to the elevated position of laws of the land and there is where the Honourable Speaker fell into error,” he lamented.
Meanwhile, Finance Minister Dr. Ashni noted that the matter of whether or not the Opposition can cut the budget was the subject of extensive arguments last year, leading to this matter being deliberated and adjudicated by the courts of law. This, he said, led to a written decision handed down by the Chief Justice in which he said that the National Assembly had acted outside of the constitutional agreement in imposing cuts to budget 2012.
However, he said that notwithstanding the existence and authoritativeness on this ruling, we saw a statement by the Speaker of the National Assembly indicating that budget cuts can be moved by the Opposition and approved by the Assembly.
“We now have a decision that has been handed down by the Speaker that collides directly and frontally with a decision that has already been handed down by the conventional authority on pronouncing on constitutional or legal matters, the courts of law,” he said.
Meantime, Dr. Singh pointed out that Opposition members had alluded to him saying last year that the National Assembly does have the power to amend the estimates.
However, he said that he is not the authority on constitutional matters and that at that time, he was speaking based on his interpretation of the standing orders that were available to him. In addition, he related, particularly, that at that time the matter had been untested by the courts, noting that it was subsequently tested by the courts.
The minister further stated that irrespective of what individual interpretations might have been, the rulings of the court must be respected.
“I say many things in relation to government’s views, government’s policies, government’s interpretation of situations etc. I don’t know that the Opposition ever treated everything I say as authoritative…They have latched on to one thing that I have said last year and suddenly want to treat it as gospel. That discloses to the nation that they are politically opportunistic and hypocritical,” he said.
Moreover, the minister stated that the Opposition used their combined one-seat majority to demand an unprecedented interruption in consideration of the budget.
Additionally, he stated that they also imposed their will in a number of other respects including dictating the number of days allocated for the estimates, the length of time allocated and the schedule of sequence in which ministries and agencies shall be considered. He stressed that absolutely no account was taken of any of the government’s views and representations.
Dr. Singh related that thus far there have been a few developments which could be described as alarming, showing clearly that the Opposition has no interest in and no commitment to national development.
He pointed out that the government is completely and fully prepared to answer any question posed to it in the National Assembly, adding that thus far no question posed by the opposition has gone unanswered by the government.
“Government ministers have made themselves available to answer in detail…they have offered to provide additional documentation where that was required, they have offered to engage in extra parliamentary discussions with opposition members to clarify issues…The opposition has still used their majority to impose cuts to important allocations in the budget,” he stated.
The minister pointed out that the first amendment was made under the Ministry of Health, against the specialty hospital, which was completely cut from the 2013 budget. He stressed that at present there is no facility that provides specialised health care at the level that is intended by the specialty hospital.
He advised that the specialty hospital was being developed in collaboration with the Government of India through a loan provided by the Indian Exim Bank.
He stated that the loan has been approved, and the loan agreement tabled in the National Assembly in keeping with government’s commitment to transparency and accountability.
Dr. Singh pointed out that the Health Minister provided extensive explanations on this project and that he was supported by him, the Finance Minister, to provide some answers. Nevertheless, on the motion of the Alliance For Change’s Leader Khemraj Ramjattan, the cut was imposed.
“The merits of the project itself would have suggested that no responsible member of the National Assembly would cut a financial allocation for a project like that. No right-minded Guyanese would deny our country a facility such as that,” he asserted.
The minister noted that the very National Assembly last year approved this project for inclusion in the budget. He said that government proceeded to commence implementation of the project by executing a legally binding contract with an international company to construct the hospital.
He further stated that a mobilization advance was paid by the Exim Bank on behalf of the government to the contractor.
According to Dr. Singh, the AFC was aware that there is a legally binding contract with this company and that a mobilisation advance has been made for the company to commence its work.
Additionally, he revealed that one of the competing bidders, who initially had protested the fact that they had not won the bid for the contract but who, significantly, did not pursue the legal remedy for bid process, made a few public pronouncements on the matter.
He related that the cut to the allocation for this project was moved by Ramjattan who, by his own public admission, was at the time the legal representative of this aggrieved bidder.
“So Mr. Ramjattan had an interest in the matter, he was the lawyer of the company who did not get the contract and now knowing that another company got the contract, properly so, and has been paid a mobilisation advance,” he said.
He further stated that Ramjattan, knowing that the project was properly approved in last year’s budget, but turns around and cuts its allocations this year, is a very significant dimension in relation to what transpired.