SIR, earlier in the day, we approved a resolution setting out the time frame within which each of the constitutional agencies will be considered. It was the Business Sub-Committee of the National Assembly that brought the resolution with the concurrence of both sides of this honourable House.

What we have here in all are five hours, but what we have here, if you permit me, Sir, is an attempt at procrastination to defeat the resolution of the National Assembly, which the Rules and the Standing Orders of the House do not entertain in terms of any dilatory motion or attempt at such motions. But we have seen motions from the floor as another mechanism, another ruse, to frustrate the work of this National Assembly.

The Standing Orders, first of all, Standing Order 76, says that if you were to move an amendment when a matter is before the Committee of Supply, (and we are in the Committee of Supply), it needs a notice to be given of the motion of amendment.
We have heard from the honourable opposition on that side — the noisy opposition that is boisterous and destabilising — that they can move the motion to put the submission by the constitutional agency to a vote.

What is the practice here, Sir? And, if you allow me, I want to say that It was this side of the House, the APNU+AFC Coalition Government, that moved these agencies from statutory agencies to constitutional agencies against the opposition of that side of the House — persistent opposition. Why? Because we wanted to honour the provision of the constitution, Article 222 of the constitution, that is an overarching protection for constitutional agencies and to protect their independence.

When they were in the government, these honourable members refused to guarantee the independence of this National Assembly. They refused to guarantee the independence of the judiciary, they refused to guarantee the independence of the Elections Commission so that they can manipulate them, using finance as a weapon of control and manipulation.
And I must speak the truth to these honourable members, because they are speaking with forked tongues here today in this honourable House, when they come here to defend the constitutional agencies.

What a day of shame!! That those people who stabbed the constitutional agencies in the backs and cut the throats of the constitutional agencies can set themselves up here today as defenders of these agencies!

Sir, I speak passionately on this issue, Your Honour, because I am seeing the various attempts by honourable members of this house to frustrate the consideration of these estimates. The constitution Sir, the law, the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act and its Amendment, provide for the Minister of Finance to issue a Budget Circular. Within the Budget Circular, under Section 7 of the Act, it says that the minister shall give the guidance as to the state of finances for their consideration of what have to be taken by agencies in submitting their proposals.

It cannot be an open-ended proposal, it cannot be fiscal irresponsibility in making these proposals, it must be within the framework of national affordability and that was what was guiding the other side when they were over here.

(But they prorogued the National Assembly to destroy parliamentary democracy). That was what they were talking about, that we could not afford and the nations’ workers had to be contending with five percent wage increases and no more in one year.

So, I say this today that this Parliament, this National Assembly, should move on the recommendations made by the Minister of Finance and that the question be put, because you cannot interrogate the constitutional agencies. They are a lumpsum presented here.

And so today, I want this dilatory tactic to be put to an end because it violates the Standing Orders of this House.