Speaker defends National Assembly’s right to amend Estimates

SPEAKER of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, last evening suggested the establishment of a sub-committee within the Parliamentary Committee of Supply, which is currently reviewing in detail the allocations in the 2014 Budget.The establishment of the sub-committee was advised in light of the ruling by Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang.
However, after a hour-long meeting with Government and the Opposition last night, the was still no naming of such a committee.
The Speaker’s suggestion for a sub-committee followed his outlining several guidelines on procedures to be adopted by the National Assembly in proposing amendments to Budget 2014.
He said, “It has become necessary to provide directives through which the National Assembly will proceed to consider the Estimates of Expenditure for 2014 in the Committee of Supply.
In January, this year, Chang ruled that the National Assembly has no right to cut the national budget. The Chief Justice handed down his decision in the High Court on January 29. In the preliminary ruling given in June 2012, the CJ had ruled that the National Assembly had a role to either approve or disapprove of the National Estimate, not to cut them.
Following the ruling, the Parliament Office issued a missive claiming that the ruling is an interpretation that would have far-reaching ripples and effects throughout the Commonwealth parliamentary systems and procedures.
According to the statement, the right of the National Assembly to approve, including the right to amend budgetary estimates, is a long established right.
A Notice of Appeal of Chang’s decision was since filed in February by lawyer and Leader of the Alliance for Change, Khemraj Ramjattan, on behalf of Trotman, who was listed as the appellant in the court. The AG was listed as a respondent in an appeal of Chang’s controversial 2012 Budget cut ruling.

RESPECT THE CJ’S DECISION
Trotman told the House yesterday that as one important arm of the tripartite governance structure of the State of Guyana, the National Assembly cannot be unmindful of the views and opinions of the High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature, another important arm of the State, when it pronounces on matters that directly, or indirectly, affect the National Assembly.
He said, “Every effort will be made always to respect the High Court’s opinions; provided that the independence of the National Assembly is not impinged.
“In a previous Ruling (No. 3 of 2013), it was stated that there is no “burden or duty” placed on the National Assembly to adopt or enforce rulings of the High Court. This position was essentially repeated in Ruling No. 4 of 2013.
“However, given the doctrine of comity (mutual respect by one branch of State or another), the National Assembly is always respectful of, and grateful for, opinions and interpretations provided by the High Court from time to time.
“This is so even in light of the fact that an appeal has been filed in the Court of Appeal against the decision on February 25, 2014. It is of paramount importance that the three branches of State – the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial, respect each other’s authority and decisions derived there form.”
According to him, anarchy would be the outcome if the custodians of the different branches of government exhibit open disrespect for and hostility towards each other.
Trotman said, “The citizenry must be spared and protected from this. In the circumstances, and without prejudice to the National Assembly’s right to pursue the appeal and to define its own procedures, every reasonable effort will be made to respect and implement the decision of the High Court.”

NO STAY ORDER
On this note, the Speaker pointed out that no stay of execution of the High Court’s decision has been applied for.
He said, “This is simply because I am of the considered opinion that the National Assembly cannot recognise a right in the High Court to fetter or restrict its activities.
“Implicit in an application for a stay of execution is the belief that the Court’s orders and directions are binding on the National Assembly. As such, an application for a stay of execution would be unsound and harmful as it would admit to a jurisdiction that is non-existent.
Much care and attention has been exercised in scrutinising the Hon. Chief Justice’s decision.
“It is my considered opinion that despite the views and opinions of the High Court, the decision does not, and indeed cannot, do harm to the National Assembly’s procedures for treating with the Estimates of Expenditure.”
The Speaker cited Article 165 (1) of the Constitution, which he maintains is pellucid in its intention.
The Article says, “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the National Assembly may regulate its own procedure and may make rules for that purpose.”
Trotman made it clear that no court can interfere with or fetter this right.
He said, “This right has been universally recognised and upheld even in the High Court of Guyana in the 1963 case of Jagan et al -v- Gajraj. For this reason, I utterly reject the notion that the National Assembly can act unlawfully in the exercise of its functions as prescribed above.
“In furtherance of this bestowed right, the National Assembly has promulgated its own rules and procedures that are known as ‘Standing Orders’. These Standing Orders regulate the practices and procedures to be applied and adhered to for all matters coming before the National Assembly; including of course the review and approval of the Estimates of Expenditure.

ROUTINE PROCESS
The time honoured procedure for the handling of the financial estimates of revenues and expenditures (the National Budget) is as follows:
* The Minister of Finance submits to the National Assembly the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for a given financial year in satisfaction of Article 218 of the Constitution. This presentation is made in the form of a Motion.
* The Minister, on presentation of the estimates, makes a “budget speech” detailing the policy framework within which the estimates of the financial year are being presented. At the end of this speech, the Hon. Minister formally proposes the Motion for the National Assembly to approve the estimates and a debate ensues.
* This debate is expected to last for a minimum, of five days and is confined to “the financial and economic state of the country and the general principles of Government policy and administration.”
* The National Assembly, from time immemorial, has determined that at the end of the debate, a special committee comprising all members of the House will convene to consider the details of the estimates. This Committee is known as the Committee of Supply. The Committee of Supply is not to be confused with the constitutional body known as the National Assembly.
* Standing Order 72 establishes the purpose of this Committee as being “to consider the Estimates and Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure submitted to the National Assembly.”
* The Committee of Supply considers each head of Expenditure, and at this stage, Members are permitted to propose amendments to the estimates for their increase or reduction. The right to introduce amendments to increase expenditures is restricted to Ministers acting with Cabinet’s consent. This is in recognition of the strict injunction contained in Article 171 of the Constitution. All proposals for amendments to reduce estimates for expenditure however, can be proposed by any Member of the Assembly.
* At the end of the consideration of the estimates, the Hon. Minister of Finance reports to the National Assembly that the estimates have been considered in Committee of Supply and approved by the Committee, with or without amendments being proposed, or not approved at all.
Trotman said, “It is in the final stage of the procedure set out above that constitutes the nub of the differences between the opposition/majority side of the House, and the Government.”

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
The Speaker explained that the National Assembly relies on Standing Orders 75 and 76 to guide it in the review and approval process of the estimates of expenditure, Standing Orders that have been recognised as legal instruments since the birth of the nation.
He said, ‘It is critical to note that when the Committee of Supply considers the Estimates and ‘approves’ of them, whether after making ‘amendments’, that is, through the process of proposing reductions of line items in accordance with Standing Order 76 or by the process of not-approvals of line items, or not, this function neither equates to, nor constitutes, the ‘approval’ function required by the Constitution in Article 218.
“The approval is only given in the first instance by the Assembly when the Honourable Minister of Finance reports to the plenary of the National Assembly that the Committee of Supply has considered the Estimates and then goes on to ask the National Assembly to approve the report of the Committee.”
Trotman pointed out that it is at this stage, and at no other, that the National Assembly fulfils the constitutional function of approving the Estimates as provided for in Article 218.
He said, “The approval of the Estimates by the Committee of Supply cannot be meant to be the approval contemplated by the Constitution because a Committee of the National Assembly has no power or authority to bind the National Assembly.
“…when the Committee of Supply makes ‘amendments’ to the Estimates, there is, with the greatest of respect, nothing unlawful or unconstitutional about these actions.
“If indeed the Committee of Supply has made amendments, which are in essence proposals for changes to the Estimates, then it is the duty of the Honourable Minister of Finance to indicate to the National Assembly whether the Government wishes time to consider the ‘amendments’ before the Speaker puts the Motion to the National Assembly for their adoption.
“The Government is also within its right to either accept the amendments or to reject them in toto.”
The Speaker made it clear that the functions of the Committee of Supply and the National Assembly, as against those of the Minister of Finance, representing the Executive, are not mutually exclusive; though it must be conceded that at times the lines of distinction have become blurred.
He said, “The National Assembly is ever mindful of the fact that the separation of powers doctrine must be strictly adhered to.
“In this regard, the words of David G. McGee in his book ‘The Budget Process: A Parliamentary Imperative’ are worth repeating: ‘If a government assumes office it exercises executive power and is entitled to do so as long as it remains in office. If a legislature is dissatisfied with the policy being followed by the executive, it has constitutional power of dismissing it, but not of taking over executive power itself and imposing its own policy. Executives govern through legislatures; legislatures do not themselves govern’.”
Procedurally, the manner in which moneys are approved for withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund is regulated by the Constitution, the Financial Management and Accountability Act, and the Standing Orders of the National Assembly.

(By Vanessa Narine )