President Ramotar says PPP/C is prepared to face consequences of such a motion

PRESIDENT Donald Ramotar in his response to the letter from the Alliance For Change (AFC) indicating their intention to move a no confidence motion against the Government has reiterated that the People’s Progressive Party/Civic is prepared to face the consequences of a such a motion and the electorate.“As I have said publicly before, the PPP/C and I are prepared to face the consequences of such a motion and the electorate.”

“It will give us the opportunity to demand that the AFC explains to the Guyanese people their denial of them having cheap energy by opposing the Hydro Power Station at Amaila. In so doing, you have opposed the industrialisation of our country and the creation of decent jobs for our people, particularly our young people.”

“It will give us the opportunity to demand that the AFC explains to the Guyanese people their denial of them having cheap energy by opposing the Hydro Power Station at Amaila. In so doing, you have opposed the

industrialisation of our country and the creation of decent jobs for our people, particularly our young people.”
“You will have a chance to explain why you have voted against giving the Guyanese people better health care due to your opposition to a specialty hospital. Moreover, you will clarify for the electorate whether it was because your client lost out in the bidding process to construct the complex.”
“It will be a good occasion for you to explain to the people if your opposition to the construction of a Marriot Hotel was rooted in the fact that your chief financier is also in the hotel business,” the President stated in his reply to the AFC’s letter.
The President also lashed out at the AFC for opposing the Anti-Money Laundering Bill (AML/CTF), budgetary cuts affecting development in the in the indigenous communities and partnering with A People’s Partnership for National Unity (APNU calling for the closure of the sugar industry).
He added:”…I reiterate that I will never stand in the way of any person or political party seeking to execute any constitutional right, power or freedom which they enjoy.”
THE Leader of the Alliance for Change (AFC), Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan, yesterday, in a letter made clear to President Donald Ramotar, his party’s consideration of moving a no-confidence motion against the current administration.

“You will have a chance to explain why you have voted against giving the Guyanese people better health care due to your opposition to a specialty hospital. Moreover, you will clarify for the electorate whether it was because your client lost out in the bidding process to construct the complex.”

In the letter, Ramjattan said: “I am aware that Article 106(6) of our Constitution provides an option (of moving a no-confidence motion) that is currently being discussed nationwide i.e. the forced resignation of the Cabinet including the President following a defeat in the National Assembly on a vote of no-confidence.
“In the light of what has occurred, I wish to formally clarify that my Party has indeed been actively considering this option and currently is of the view that the options for lawful and constitutional alternatives have rapidly decreased.
“Our Party sees no other alternative than to proceed with this constitutional mechanism for removal of an unpopular Government that has ceased to enjoy the confidence of the National Assembly and who by its actions has demonstrated an unlawful and contemptuous disregard for the Supreme Law of the Country.”

NO AGREEMENT

The AFC Leader’s letter was copied to Opposition Leader, Brigadier (rtd.) David Granger, but attempts by the Guyana Chronicle to contact him for a comment proved futile.
However, at A Partnership for National Unity’s (APNU) weekly press conference yesterday Granger did address the issue.
He said the party has not agreed with the AFC on the no-confidence motion and the party is examining the ruling party’s administration of state affairs. “It is not something we are going to jump into,” the Opposition Leader said.
The AFC consideration of moving a no-confidence motion was first made public by its member, Mr. Moses Nagamootoo, who explained that the move was premised on what the party considered “unauthorised and unconstitutional” withdrawals made from our nation’s Consolidated Fund by the Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh.

“We cannot condone, participate in, or lend any support to such a serious breach of the Constitution and laws of Guyana; and we find it necessary in the light of the clear and present danger to the Constitution and the rule of law to explore all options necessary for safeguarding the public purse against further lawless spending,” Ramjattan said on the matter.

CONSOLIDATED AND CONTINGENCIES FUND

Dr. Singh has since made clear the legality in his actions on several occasions. At his last press briefing, he explained the different mechanisms he has employed in the authorisation of spending.
The Minister of Finance pointed out that the use of the Contingency Fund has to meet different criteria than that of the Consolidated Fund.
Article 220 (1) and (2) of the Constitution addresses the establishment and use of the Contingency Fund.

It states that: “(1) Parliament may make provision for the establishment of a Contingencies Fund and for authorising the minister responsible for finance to make advances from that Fund if he is satisfied that there is an urgent need for expenditure for which no other provision exists.
“(2) Where any advance is made from the Contingencies Fund a supplementary estimate shall, as soon as practicable, be laid before the National Assembly by the Prime Minister or any other minister designated by the President for the purpose of authorising the replacement of the amount so advanced.”
Also, according to Article 218 (3) of the Constitution, no monies shall be withdrawn from public funds other than the Consolidated Fund. It further states that the issuing of those monies must have been authorised by or under “an Act of Parliament”.
Majority of the spending from the Consolidated Fund is done via the Parliament’s approval of the annual national budgets – the approval being “an Act of Parliament.”
As it relates to the Contingencies Fund, Parliament, in 2003, approved the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act. This Act would be regarded as, “an Act of Parliament” according to Article 218 (3) of the Constitution.

“It will be a good occasion for you to explain to the people if your opposition to the construction of a Marriot Hotel was rooted in the fact that your chief financier is also in the hotel business.”

Section 41 of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 defines in part one, under the heading “Schedule”, the definition of a ‘Contingencies Fund advance’. Such an advance refers to “an expenditure out of the Consolidated Fund”, which is made according to Section 41 (3) of the Act.
The Contingencies Fund is further defined as a sub-fund established by the Finance Minister, made according to Section 41 (1) of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act. Mentioned in Section 41, the Contingencies Fund is established as a sub-fund of the Consolidated Fund.
Subsection (2) of Section 41 of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003, mandates that the Minister of Finance shall have the sole authority for the release of monies from the Contingencies Fund and this authority is not to be delegated to any other authority.
In order to access the Contingencies Fund, the Minister must satisfy that there is an “urgent, unavoidable and unforeseen need for expenditure”, which the monies from the Contingency Fund will be used for. This urgency, according to paragraph (c) of Section 41 (3), would be justified if withholding the money would otherwise result in “injury to the public interest”.
Considering that part one of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 provided the definition for a ‘Contingencies Fund advance’, Article 41 stipulates that the Minister may approve a Contingencies Fund advance as monies to be spent out of the Consolidated Fund by issuing a drawing right.
Subsection 5 of Section 41 of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 notes that the Minister shall report at the next sitting of the National Assembly on all advances. The report must include the amounts paid, whom they were paid to and the impact of the payment.
The Act under Section 41 (6) (b) provides that after the National Assembly has approved of the Contingencies Fund advance or advances, and upon the passing of a supplementary appropriation Act, the amount of the advance or advances shall be added back, in the amount of the total authorised, by the National Assembly under subsection (4) to the Contingencies Fund.
Finally, Section 41 (7) provides that once the National Assembly has approved the advance or advances, the Contingencies Fund shall be replenished to the sum of the amounts approved.
The Finance Minister addressed the fact that the combined Parliamentary Opposition, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance for Change (AFC), has only approved 92.6 per cent of the spending from the Contingency Fund during the 10th Parliament.
To date, the current 10th Parliament of the National Assembly has considered six Financial Papers related to the use of the Contingencies Fund collectively valued at approximately $9.358B. The Assembly, comprised of the Opposition, has approved 92.6 per cent of those Financial Papers valued at approximately $8.7B clearly demonstrating agreement with the use of the Contingencies Fund in most cases.

STATEMENT OF EXCESS
Another important point, the Finance Minister underscored was the use of another instrument for spending, that of the Statements of Excess.
He explained that Statements of Excess does not reflect spending from the Contingency Fund.
Section 218 (3) of the Constitution states that: “If in respect of any financial year it is found: (a) that the amount appropriated by the Appropriation Act for any purpose is insufficient or that a need has arisen for expenditure for a purpose for which no amount has been appropriated by that Act;
“Or (b) that any moneys have been expended for any purpose in excess of the amount appropriated for that purpose by the Appropriation Act or for a purpose for which no amount has been appropriated by that Act, a supplementary estimate or, as the case may be, a statement of excess showing the sums required or spent shall be laid before the Assembly by the Prime Minister or any other Minister designated by the President.”
He also referenced the Parliamentary Standing Order 78 (1), which deals with supplementary estimates of expenditure and statements of excess.
The Order states that: “If in respect of any financial year it is found:- [a] that the amount appropriated by the Appropriation Act for any purpose is insufficient or that a need has arisen for Expenditure for a purpose for which amount has been appropriated by that Act;
“Or [b] that any monies have been expended for any purpose in excess of the amount appropriated for that purpose by the Appropriation Act or for a purpose for which no amount has been appropriated by that Act;
“Or [c] that advances have been made from the Contingencies Fund for Expenditure for which no other provision exists, a Minister may present a Paper with the Supplementary Estimate or, as the case may be, the Statement of Excess showing the sums required or spent and that Paper shall be ordered to be printed and shall stand referred to the Committee of Supply without question put and shall be appointed to be considered on a day to be named by the Minister presenting the Paper but not earlier than one (1) day after that on which the Paper was presented.”
The Finance Minister maintained his contention that all public spending advanced by the current Administration has been done within the stated legal parameters and can withstand any level of scrutiny.

WILL NOT BE THREATENED
The Head of State, Donald Ramotar, when the issue was first raise, made it clear that his Government will not be threatened.
“We do not take threats. If the Opposition wants to pass a no-confidence bill, let them pass it and we will be ready to deal with the consequences of that,” the President has said.
Mr. Ramotar also indicated that his Government is ready to call general elections if such a motion is passed.
“When I say I am going to do it, I am going to do it,” he said.
This is not the first time the President has hinted at the possibility of an early return to the polls, as a means to address the political gridlock that has gripped the nation since the 2011 general elections, which gave the ruling party, the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) the Government, but also resulted in a majority in the National Assembly for the combined Opposition, the AFC and APNU.
The Head of State, last month at a press conference held at State House, made it clear that his administration is not opposed to calling neither the general elections nor the local government elections, adding that issuing the commencement order for these processes could be based on the impacts of the ruling by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
The General-Secretary of the ruling party, Clement Rohee, also made similar hints at a party press conference minutes after the final vote to pass the 2014 Budget, minus $37.4B in allocations in April.
Rohee said, “I am optimistic that the President, Cabinet and ministerial colleagues will find a way out and this way out will depend on the people’s will to overcome these difficulties.
“We have ultimately great confidence in the will of the Guyanese people, as they have demonstrated in the past to find their way out of difficulties. This wound (the budget cuts) will heal and the people of this country will help us heal this wound.”
Section 106 (6) of the Constitution states that: “The Cabinet and President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of the majority of all Members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence.”
However, the following paragraph, Section 106 (7) makes clear that: “Notwithstanding its defeat, the Government shall remain in office and shall hold an election within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution, supported by no less than two-thirds of all elected members of the National Assembly, and shall resign after a new President takes the oath of office following the election.”