IN response to Janette Bulkan’s letter in the Wednesday, February 19, 2014 edition of the Stabroek News, titled “The constitution and the standing orders provide no barrier to the management of the debate line by line”, kindly allow me to state the following:

1. It is not surprising, being anti-government, that Janette Bulkan, an alien forest expert, fully supports the Parliamentary Opposition (PNC/APNU & AFC) to cut the 2014 National Budget estimates, misusing its one-seat majority in the National Assembly.
2. In justifying that the National Assembly has the power to increase or reduce the Minister of Finance’s budget estimates, Bulkan referred to a set of Standing Orders and Articles 171 & 218 which she has misinterpreted, basically to mislead or misinform the public readership.
3. But in relation to Budget cuts, Acting Chief Justice, Ian Chang, in his final ruling on the 2012 Budget cuts by the National Assembly, simply said, “This Court holds that, while the Assembly may approve or not approve the Minister’s Estimate of Expenditure, it has no power to amend those estimates by way of reduction (or of increase). It is the executive Minister’s estimates, and it is he who must amend them to obtain the Assembly’s approval, so that the Cabinet may recommend or consent to the presentation of an Appropriation Bill to the Assembly for passing for the purpose, charging those estimates to the Consolidated Fund.” The Chief Justice further said, “…in the circumstances, the Court sees it fit to declare that the National Assembly, through the Committee of Supply, has acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally in purporting to reduce or cut the Estimates of Expenditure of the Minister of Finance for the Financial Year 2012. The Court sees it fit to further declare that the power of the National Assembly is limited to giving or withholding its approval for the Minister’s estimates…” This ruling by the Chief Justice is so simple to understand, since it is self-explanatory, that the National Assembly does not have the power to either reduce or increase the Minister of Finance’ Estimates of Expenditure, because it is unlawful and unconstitutional. Bulkan needs to put aside ignorance, and accept the truth as declared by the Chief Justice of Guyana.
4. What are Standing Orders of the National Assembly, which Bulkan, like her confederates in the PNC/APNU and AFC, is trying to say give power to the National Assembly to cut or increase the Budget estimates? This is totally wrong, since Standing Orders are not written laws; and Article 9 of the Constitution never converted pre-existing Standing Orders made by the Assembly from their status as procedural rules of Self-Regulation into procedural rules of Law. Further, Standing Orders can be repealed and amended by the Assembly itself, without the need for any repealing or amending legislative provision, which clearly shows that they are not written law. In this regard, the Chief Justice pointed out that “whatever their contents, the Speaker cannot interpret them, and the Assembly cannot apply them in such a manner as to contravene the Constitution.” So, Standing Orders are merely rules of procedure for the internal operations of the National Assembly. So, get it right, Bulkan!
5. With reference to Article 171 (2) (a) (II) the National Assembly cannot proceed on any Bill for imposing any charge upon the Consolidated Fund or any public fund without the recommendations or consent of the Cabinet. In this regard, the National Assembly can propose amendments and not itself make amendments to the Minister’s estimates. But the Chief Justice said that “If the Assembly has already amended the estimates, then this obviates the necessity for its subsequent approval, and the requirement for approval in Article 218 is effectively negatived.” This simply means that if the National Assembly amends the Minister of Finance’s estimates, then the requirement for approval becomes unnecessary. Then, what becomes of Article 218 in our National Constitution? This shows clearly that the National Assembly violated the National Constitution, the supreme law of the land in cutting the 2012 Budget estimates, which the Parliamentary Opposition again intends to do in 2014. What absolute lawlessness!
6. Bulkan, in her letter, said, “I suggest that a broader reading of articles in the National Constitution, together with the Standing Orders of the National Assembly will show that there is really no problem.” This is indeed a good suggestion for Bulkan herself, who needs to properly or rightly understand what are Standing Orders of the National Assembly, and not misinterpret them for the deliberate contravention of Guyana’s Constitution, which her masters in the Parliamentary Opposition (PNC/APNU & AFC) are currently doing.
7. Finally, Mr. Editor, Bulkan said in her letter that “All the serious debate and horse-trading takes place in the Committee of Supply without needing to consider the convoluted wording of Article 171, which deals with both Bill and Motion, not in a congruent manner.” This is where Bulkan has exposed her ignorance about Guyana’s Constitution, and is being totally incorrect and misleading to justify that Standing Orders of the National Assembly can be used to reduce or increase the National Budget estimates. Article 171 of the Constitution is not convoluted, neither congruent. Bulkan’s problem is that she is simply unable to legally construe our National Constitution. This however requires deep concentration and a comfortable environment, and my humble advice to Bulkan is to return to the Waini River area, relax in a hammock, drink coconut water, and study our National Constitution. She can take along experts as resource persons.

Peter Persaud