THE Legislative Council of any country is the law-making forum of the nation. In Guyana, the joint Opposition has made our august National Assembly a law-breaking forum instead.

Even before the Minister of Finance presented the 2014 Budget in the House, the Opposition has pronounced and threatened ‘bloody war’ and cuts to allocations to vital sectors, as they did in 2012 and 2013, using every imaginable ploy to create mayhem and anarchy in the land, with the stated intention of making Guyana ungovernable under a PPP/C Government.

Their threats of cuts to the 2012 budget estimates prevailed in the National Assembly, and they gloatingly referred to the victims, mainly hinterland dwellers and the ordinary employees of the State as ‘collateral damage’.

So in desperate attempts to obviate the severely detrimental impacts to its transformational developmental programmes, Government was forced to seek judicial review of the budgetary cuts.

The administration therefore moved to the High Court to have the approximate $21 billion cuts to the 2012 national budget by the parliamentary Opposition, judicially reviewed in efforts to have the reduction of the estimates and revenues by the Committee of Supply, particularly as it related to Office of the President, Guyana Power and Light Inc. (GPL), Government Information Agency (GINA), National Communications Network (NCN), Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Information Communications Technology and other affected agencies, declared an abrogation of the doctrine of separation of powers, unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void and of no legal effect.

Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, prepared the writ, which also sought to empower Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh to make withdrawals from the Contingencies Fund in accordance with Article 220 of the Constitution, which arrogates to Parliament the powers to authorise the Minister of Finance to take advances from the Contingencies Fund for urgent and unforeseen expenditure for which no other provision exists.

An ex parte application was submitted by way of an affidavit for Interim Orders as the Administration sought to obtain a Conservatory Order from the High Court. The affidavit in support was set out by Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon, who is responsible for the management and general administration of the Office of the President and assists in the execution of executive decisions and policies.

The affidavit pointed to Article 218 of the Constitution of Guyana, which states that, in short, it is the exclusive responsibility of the Executive to prepare and lay before the National Assembly the Annual Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure for each financial year, for its approval or disapproval.

Dr. Luncheon noted however, that no power resides in the National Assembly, either in the Committee of Supply, or at all, to move an amendment to reduce any aspect of the Annual Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure laid by the Minister of Finance, and certainly, the National Assembly has no power whatsoever, in proposing a new or different sum, or any sum at all.

On these grounds, the administration charged that the two motions moved by Mr Khemraj Ramjattan and Mr Carl Greenidge, which sought to reduce the national budget, and proposed different sums instead, amounted to an arrogation of powers, in addition to usurpation of a function which exclusively resides in the Executive, thereby abrogating the doctrine of separation of powers.

The Cabinet Secretary, in the affidavit, added that “in respect of the affected agencies, the National Assembly, and not the Executive, presented the Annual Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure for the year 2012, a situation not provided for, nor contemplated by, the Constitution in any form or fashion.”

The affidavit further explained that under the Constitution of Guyana the National Assembly has only the power to approve or disapprove of the national budget, in its entirety. As such, all reductions to the budget were ultra vires the Constitution and the jurisdiction and authority of the National Assembly.

The financial strangulation of the Executive, the affidavit noted, will severely and irreversibly prevent the discharging of functions in the manner provided for and contemplated by the Constitution, and/or legislation, resulting not only in constitutional chaos, but the Executive’s inability to govern and administer the affairs of the nation in accordance with the provisions of, and in the manner contemplated by the Constitution.

Dr. Luncheon also stated quite clearly in his affidavit that the financial resources of the State are more than adequate to meet the original Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure for 2012, as laid in the National Assembly by the Minister of Finance, and called on the High Court to ensure that the balance of convenience, justice and national interest weighs heavily in favour of the grant of the Orders sought, whilst giving the assurance that “there is no harm, damage or injustice which will accrue if the Order sought herein is granted, and on the other hand, if they are refused, constitutional chaos, which jeopardises the nation’s interest, is a likely consequence.”

Just before Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh’s 2014 Budget presentation, Justice Ian Chang upheld Dr. Luncheon’s contentions, ruling that cutting of the national budgetary estimates by the parliamentary Opposition was a breach of the Constitution and therefore unlawful, and that the mandate of the Opposition limited them to merely approving and/or disapproving and did not vest in them the power to cut Government’s budgetary estimates. That power, according to the Chief Justice’s ruling governing legal protocols of National Budgets, resides only in the Government.

But despite the fact that the Opposition membership is comprised of a plethora of lawyers, who have sworn to uphold the Constitution, their stated intention, with the latest threat coming from the head of the Opposition himself David Granger, is to ignore the Chief Justice’s ruling and once again break the laws of the land by ‘cutting’ another national budget.

Their contempt for the law of the land and the employees of Ministry of Finance – technocrats who are doing a professional job in the team assisting in the formulation and the crafting of the budget, is apparent with their continued lawless disregard for the Chief Justice’s ruling and the remark of APNU MP Joseph Harmon in the House that: “My colleagues, let’s face it. Dr. Singh and his team are tired and they have produced an uninspiring Budget, so uninspiring that the Honourable Minister himself, in his presentation, seemed to have been infected by the tiredness of his team….give it up Ashni, find another job.”

Sorry, Harmon, Guyana’s Finance Minister and his team are brilliant young professionals that have stabilised Guyana’s macro-economic fundamentals and have created a growth pattern that have sustained for eight years. Compare this with your party’s track record in Government.