…House should be allowed to cut the budget

THE Attorney General should not be a member of Cabinet and the National Assembly must be able to amend estimates presented by the Finance Minister are two of the key recommendations made by the Steering Committee on Constitutional Reform (SCCR).

The committee’s recommendations are contained in a report which was submitted to Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo on April 30, 2016 by Nigel Hughes who headed the committee.

The SCCR was established last August to draft a work programme and make recommendations for constitutional reform, a process for which repeated calls have been made. It was comprised of Hughes; former Director of Transparency International, Attorney-at-law, Gino Persaud; Professor Harold Lutchman; former magistrate, Geeta Chandan-Edmond; and former chief economist at the Central Bank, the late Haslyn Parris.

The APNU+AFC Coalition had lobbied relentlessly for constitutional reform, and had made it a major platform issue during its pre-election campaign.

In its framework for constitutional reform, the Committee said consideration should be given to address the effects and consequences of the decision of the court in the matter of Attorney General, V Raphael Trotman.

In 2012, 2013 and 2014, the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance for Change (AFC), while in Opposition, had made significant cuts and amendments to the National Budgets, which were laid in the House by the then Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh.

In 2012 when the cuts were initially made by the joint parliamentary Opposition, the then Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister, Anil Nandlall had moved to the courts.

Approximately, two years after the then Chief Justice, Ian Chang ruled that the cuts made by the Opposition to the 2012 budget were unlawful. In his 21 page ruling, the Chief Justice said “…while the Assembly may approve or not approve the Minister’s estimates 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 of charging those estimates to the Consolidated Fund.”

As such, the Justice Chang had ruled that the National Assembly through the Committee of Supply had 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…,” the ruling stated.

President David Granger, while seated as Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly, had voiced his concerns days after the ruling was made. The then Speaker of the House, Raphael Trotman had said that the ruling can have far reaching implications for the commonwealth parliamentary system. He had argued that the National Assembly’s power to approve and amend budgetary estimates is a long established one.

Though not issuing any justification for its recommendation, the SCCR is of the opinion that provisions should be made in the Constitution to have amendments made to the estimates at the level of the National Assembly.
“The National Assembly should be expressly vested with the power to amend and vary estimates presented by the Minister of Finance or other competent and authorised member of the National Assembly,” the committee recommended.

Prorogue of Parliament
Another major recommendation coming out of the framework for Constitutional Reform was another matter which had gained national, regional and even international attention – Prorogation.

In offering its recommendations, the SCCR said that “the provisions regarding the president’s powers to prorogue or dissolve parliament should be considered for amendment with particular regard to restricting the exercise of this power in limited defined circumstances.” In Guyana, the word “prorogue” was made famous by one of its former President Donald Ramotar. Ramotar served as President from 2011 to 2015.

While in Office, Ramotar on November 10, 2014 issued a proclamation to prorogue Parliament, in an attempt to prevent the National Assembly, which was controlled by the Opposition, from debating a no confidence motion which was brought against his Administration by then Vice-Chairman of the Alliance for Change, Moses Nagamootoo.

The then President, in justifying his action, said it was done in keeping with Section 70 (1) of the Constitution. According to Section 70 (1) and (2) of the Constitution, “The President may at any time by proclamation prorogue Parliament” and “The President may at any time by proclamation dissolve Parliament.”

More than a month after announcing that General and Regional Elections will be held on May 11, 2015, Ramotar on February 24, 2015 announced the dissolution of Parliament following its prorogation.

AG should not sit in Cabinet
Additionally, the Steering Committee on Constitutional Reform is recommending that the Attorney General be excluded from Cabinet.

In its submissions the committee said “The Attorney General should be excluded from membership of Cabinet in order to allow him to remain unbiased and impartial in his advice to the Government of Guyana.”

However, it opined that the Attorney General may attend and participate in Cabinet proceeds periodically, when invited. According to the committee, this is the current practice in England and Wales.

It also pointed out that in Trinidad and Tobago, the Chief Justice is appointed by a non-executive President after consultation with the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition where here in Guyana, the Chancellor and Chief Justice are appointed by the President after obtaining the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition.

Judging after retirement
The SCCR opined too that a judge should be allowed to function even after his or her retirement but in limited circumstances. “It is recommended that provision should be made in the Constitution to allow a Judge who has reached the age of retirement to continue to perform the functions of a judge in limited circumstances, e.g. a judge could continue in office to deliver judgments or to do any other thing in relation to proceedings that were commenced before he or she attained the age of retirement,” the committee said.

As such, it is calling for the consideration of section 136(2), 136(3), and 136 (5) of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.