.jpg)
KINDLY publish this letter in your most informative newspaper. I know from past experience that the other newspapers that claim to be impartial and objective will not publish my letter with regard to its contents which will be deemed to be pro-government. However, this letter is not about being pro-government, but it seeks to simply state the undisputed facts of the budget cuts.
Firstly, the budget cuts are not only unconscionable but unconstitutional. Article 218(1) has given a clear mandate to the Finance Minister to cause to be “prepared and laid” before the National Assembly , the budget of the country. The purpose of the debate can only be to influence the said minister to amend or cut from the estimates, but if the said minister is not so influenced then Article 218(2) has made it clear that by the use of the words “when the estimates have been approved by the National Assembly”, that the National Assembly can do nothing but approve the estimates. The relevant Article said ‘when’ not ‘if’.
This position was clearly stated by our learned Attorney General, the Honourable Mr. Anil Nandlall, when he said that “The letter and spirit of the Constitution forbids the National Assembly from reducing or amending the estimates presented by the Minister of Finance”. He also quoted extensively from the ruling of our learned Chief Justice Mr. Ian Chang, who concluded that applying the Doctrine of Separation of Powers in interpreting Article 218 ‘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.’
This brings us to another important fact and that is how to interpret Article 218. When interpreting constitutional laws one must be guided by the question: what the framers of the Constitution meant by the words that they put into the constitution? That is, one must seek to find the intention of the framers. The learned Chief Justice in his ruling made it pellucid that “if the drafters of the constitution had wanted the National Assembly to exercise such a power ( he was referring to the budget cut), they could have easily conferred such a power on it in the constitution in expressed terms-as was done in India(Article 113(2) of the Constitution of India.”
At this point I want to make it clear that the relevant Article in the 1980 Constitution was not placed there by accident but it was done deliberately by the PNC so that no opposition could cut or amend any estimates without their approval and the PNC/APNU must be aware of this intention. Now that the PNC/APNU are the Opposition, they want to deny that intention. It is their handiwork and they should not deny it!
The learned Chief Justice concluded that, “The court has great difficulty in making a finding that the framers of the constitution could have given the National Assembly such a far-reaching power without sating so expressly or by clear implication”. Any sane individual will conclude the same. The late L.F.S Burnham would never have given “Power to cut” to the National Assembly. He was a brilliant lawyer and he knew that to give such a power to the National Assembly would have frustrated the “Smooth running” of his government. I do not for one moment believe that Mr. Greenidge, Mr. Granger and other “old heads” in the PNC are not aware of this, but now that they are the Opposition, they want to cry foul.
The PPP/C is given the mandate by the majority of the people of this country to form the government to run this country and they should be allowed to exercise that mandate. An extra seat in the National Assembly should not be interpreted to mean that they can run or ruin this country and the PPP/C should stick to their mandate of good governance.
As a member of the AFC, I am appalled that the development of this country is being placed on the ‘back burner.’
We were given seven seats and that is not a majority and no matter how much we cohabit with PNC/APNU we will not make that majority.
The PNC is laughing! We are not the government and we are not “the Opposition.” We were supposed to be objective in our approach.We can only frustrate and drive away our current supporters by this perverted cohabitation and destroy national development. I appeal to my fellow party members to be objective in looking at these “Insane and illegal cuts”.
Firstly, the budget cuts are not only unconscionable but unconstitutional. Article 218(1) has given a clear mandate to the Finance Minister to cause to be “prepared and laid” before the National Assembly , the budget of the country. The purpose of the debate can only be to influence the said minister to amend or cut from the estimates, but if the said minister is not so influenced then Article 218(2) has made it clear that by the use of the words “when the estimates have been approved by the National Assembly”, that the National Assembly can do nothing but approve the estimates. The relevant Article said ‘when’ not ‘if’.
This position was clearly stated by our learned Attorney General, the Honourable Mr. Anil Nandlall, when he said that “The letter and spirit of the Constitution forbids the National Assembly from reducing or amending the estimates presented by the Minister of Finance”. He also quoted extensively from the ruling of our learned Chief Justice Mr. Ian Chang, who concluded that applying the Doctrine of Separation of Powers in interpreting Article 218 ‘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.’
This brings us to another important fact and that is how to interpret Article 218. When interpreting constitutional laws one must be guided by the question: what the framers of the Constitution meant by the words that they put into the constitution? That is, one must seek to find the intention of the framers. The learned Chief Justice in his ruling made it pellucid that “if the drafters of the constitution had wanted the National Assembly to exercise such a power ( he was referring to the budget cut), they could have easily conferred such a power on it in the constitution in expressed terms-as was done in India(Article 113(2) of the Constitution of India.”
At this point I want to make it clear that the relevant Article in the 1980 Constitution was not placed there by accident but it was done deliberately by the PNC so that no opposition could cut or amend any estimates without their approval and the PNC/APNU must be aware of this intention. Now that the PNC/APNU are the Opposition, they want to deny that intention. It is their handiwork and they should not deny it!
The learned Chief Justice concluded that, “The court has great difficulty in making a finding that the framers of the constitution could have given the National Assembly such a far-reaching power without sating so expressly or by clear implication”. Any sane individual will conclude the same. The late L.F.S Burnham would never have given “Power to cut” to the National Assembly. He was a brilliant lawyer and he knew that to give such a power to the National Assembly would have frustrated the “Smooth running” of his government. I do not for one moment believe that Mr. Greenidge, Mr. Granger and other “old heads” in the PNC are not aware of this, but now that they are the Opposition, they want to cry foul.
The PPP/C is given the mandate by the majority of the people of this country to form the government to run this country and they should be allowed to exercise that mandate. An extra seat in the National Assembly should not be interpreted to mean that they can run or ruin this country and the PPP/C should stick to their mandate of good governance.
As a member of the AFC, I am appalled that the development of this country is being placed on the ‘back burner.’
We were given seven seats and that is not a majority and no matter how much we cohabit with PNC/APNU we will not make that majority.
The PNC is laughing! We are not the government and we are not “the Opposition.” We were supposed to be objective in our approach.We can only frustrate and drive away our current supporters by this perverted cohabitation and destroy national development. I appeal to my fellow party members to be objective in looking at these “Insane and illegal cuts”.
