GROUNDS for the legal challenge advanced by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Executive, Mr Carl Greenidge, were rubbished by Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon.The HPS is the most recent official to comment on the action and contends that it is a “wholly unnecessary” move and dubbed it a “smokescreen.”
The challenge related to a loan agreement inked between the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and the Government of Guyana (GoG).

In the latter part of February, the IDB approved two loan applications for Guyana to the total value of US$32.16M (Gy$4.4B). One of those loans is aimed at supporting Government’s security programme, and the other is aimed at supporting the country’s environmental initiatives.
Greenidge seeks to have proceeds under the loan agreement between the GoG and the IDB paid into the Consolidated Fund, and that those moneys may not be withdrawn without the authority of an Appropriations Act. The challenge further seeks a Conservatory Order restraining the Minister of Finance from spending the proceeds of the said loan until the substantive matter is heard and determined.
During a news conference on Wednesday at the Office of the President, he said, “A challenge to an event that did not take place, in terms of withdrawal, and a challenge in terms of what did take place, the deposition of the funds into the Consolidated Fund is clearly aimed at a Court hearing, but intended for the public.”
Dr Luncheon further addressed the two primary contentions of Greenidge to highlight their “unnecessary” nature.
First, the HPS said the challenge seeks to have the proceeds of the loan agreement paid into the Consolidated Fund.

“This is an unnecessary foray into the courts because the policy based loan, the proceeds of the loan went into the Consolidated Fund and there is ample evidence to show that no withdrawals were made from the Consolidated Fund because an Appropriation Act was not in place,” Dr Luncheon said.
Secondly, the challenge insists that proceeds of the loan not be withdrawn without the authority of an Appropriations Act.
“The issue appears to be whether the proceeds of the loan were to be disburses by the Government in the absence of an Appropriation Act (a budget)…disbursements from the Consolidated Fund, indeed, require statutory an Appropriation Act,” he said.
The HPS added that, “It is wholly unnecessary and it is aimed to convey more negativity about Government spending…the move to litigation is a smokescreen, another opportunity to harp, to continue bringing to the public’s attention issues of public expenditure management.”
Additionally, five days’ leave was granted by Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang to Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister, Mr Anil Nandlall, and Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh for the filing of an affidavit in response to a legal challenged advanced by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), Mr Carl Greenidge.
The matter, which names Nandlall and Singh as the defendants, had its first hearing on Wednesday, after being filed on March 20.
The Government functionaries have maintained from the start that the challenge is without merit. The next hearing in the matter is scheduled for April 8.

‘A challenge to an event that did not take place, in terms of withdrawal, and a challenge in terms of what did take place, the deposition of the funds into the Consolidated Fund is clearly aimed at a Court hearing, but intended for the public.’ – Dr Roger Luncheon

By Vanessa Narine