ALLOCATIONS of sums for constitutional agencies were yesterday approved with adjustments by Finance Minister Winston Jordan, but to vociferous disapproval of the Opposition.

In the marathon debate on sums for the various constitution agencies, the Opposition repeatedly accused the Government of violating the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill which it passed on assumption to office. The Act insulates these constitutional agencies from the Executive, namely the Finance Minister, so that he has no say in preparing their budgets to meet their yearly expenditures, and they draw their funds directly from the Consolidated Fund.

But the Government strongly refuted the contention of the Opposition, arguing that its actions are within the law. It contended that the reduction of the budgetary estimates of some of the constitutional agencies for 2016 do not reflect a cut in expenditure compared to allocations of the previous year, as the allocations were less. But importantly, the reduction was solely based on Government’s ability to meet the sums requested.

The consideration of the estimates began with a heated debate on who should answer questions regarding the budgetary estimate for the Auditor Office.

The Auditor Office, an independent body, falls under the purview of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the National Assembly, and Opposition Member of Parliament (MP) Irfaan Ali argued that, as Chair of PAC, he should defend the sum requested by that agency, as provided for by the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill, and not the Auditor General.

But Natural Resources Minister Raphael Trotman objected to this. He contended that MP Ali, an Opposition member, cannot speak through a Government minister in defending the estimate from the Audit Office, because that is the prerogative of the Auditor General.

However, Mr Ali reminded that the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill guarantees constitutional agencies independence of the Executive in the preparation of their budgets, and he said it would be wrong for the Auditor General to defend his allocation in the House through a Government minister.

Supporting him, his colleague MP Anil Nandlall told the House that he had informed the Government of shortcomings in the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill that it passed. He pointed out that it was weak in the procedures of its administration. Mr Nandlall also contended that the move by Government to have the estimate of the Audit Office defended by the Auditor General was going against the letter and spirit of the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill.

Minister of Public Security, Khemraj Ramjattan, differed in opinion from Mr Nandlall, pointing out that the actions of the Government are not in variance with the law, and that the issue at hand represented “uncharted waters”.

He stressed that “money bills” come from the Government, monies are spent by the Executive, and the Constitution allows the majority in the House to regulate procedures of the House. On that basis, Mr Ramjattan said, there is no need for an Opposition member to defend an expenditure of the Government. He also pointed out that all can ask questions.
Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister, Basil Williams, also pointed out that the claim of Government violating the Constitution Amendment Act is erroneous, as the Finance Minister played no part in preparing the estimates for the Audit Office.

Minister Trotman also noted that the debate on estimates for the constitutional agencies is uncalled for, as outstanding issues should be settled in the Public Accounts Committee meetings.

Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo, who also took to the floor, reminded the House that it was the Government which fought for the independence of budgetary estimates for the constitutional agencies.

But members of the Opposition benches screamed, “Honour it!”

Smokescreen
The Prime Minister somewhat bemused by the quip, called the Opposition out for creating a smokescreen. He pointed out that the Opposition, when in Government, had seen no need for budgetary independence of constitutional agencies, but now has the temerity to lecture the Government on financial autonomy for these bodies.

In the end, both the Government and the Opposition agreed to an adjournment of the House to settle their difference; and after all the earlier back and forth, a decision was made.

Speaker of the House, Dr Barton Scotland, on resumption of the sitting, told the National Assembly that Mr Ali, as Chair of the PAC, will be taking questions on the Audit Office, and he urged that the House should get on with the business of the day. But when the consideration started, Ali commented that the Current and Capital Estimates, totalling $790,077,000 for period ending 31st December, 2016, were requested by the Audit Office. He said it would go a far way in enhancing public accountability and transparence through value-for-money audits.

But he criticised the Government for “cutting” the sum by some $76M, saying that the action by the Government will hamper the work of that body in effectively carrying out its work.

Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo did not take lightly to the reduction. He said that with the passage of the Constitutional Amendment Act, the financial autonomy of constitutional bodies will be guaranteed, and there will be substantial changes, but this has not happened. The reduction, he contended, is “denuding” the Audit Office from carrying out its duties.

He said once constitutional agencies determined their budgets, the Opposition will not oppose it.

No denuding
Minister of State, Joseph Harmon, said there is no denuding of the Audit Office as the sum allocated reflects a $72 million increase compared to the previous year. It was also pointed out that the now Opposition, when in Government, used to cut proposed sums of constitutional agencies before there were brought to the House.

Minister Jordan explained that the Government can only allocate sums that are affordable; while Minister Ramjattan pointed out that a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund by constitutional agencies does not mean that these agencies will get any amount that they requested. All sums, he said, must be approved by the National Assembly.

The estimates for Parliament and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution were reduced, but the sums allocated reflected an increase compared to the sums allocated the previous year. The estimates of the Judicial Service Commission, GECOM and the Office of the Ombudsman were approved with amendments.

Among the agencies whose budgets were approved with adjustments are the Director of Public Prosecution, which was reduced by $75M, and Parliament Office, reduced by $100M.

The Office of the Opposition Leader was approved without any amendment. Up to press time, early this morning, Parliament was still debating sums for several other agencies.

By Tajeram Mohabir