–as gov’t, Opposition clash over provision

OVER $116.3M was approved for the operationalisation of the State Assets Recovery Agency (SARA) amid calls from the Opposition for the Government to put a hold on the supplementary provision until the SARA Act is amended to allow for such provision.
But Government argued that the request was within the confines of the law. The $116.3M had formed part of Financial Paper No. 2 of 2017 of which supplementary provisions for capital and current projects and programmes were estimated at $2.514B.
On Thursday, when the financial paper came up for consideration at the level of the Committee of Supply during the 69th Sitting of the National Assembly, the parliamentary Opposition–the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) – expressed major concern.
Through the Legal Affairs Ministry, the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) Government sought approval from the House for approximately $89.8M in subvention for the establishment of SARA. The agency is expected to have a total of five managerial staff, 13 technical staff, 12 supervisory and clerical staff and 16 services and related staff.
Supplementary provision to the tune of $13M was also sought for the purchase of two vehicles for the agency and another $13.4M for the furnishing and equipping of a “newly rented building” to house SARA.
The latter sum includes provision for furniture, television, fridge, photocopier, projector, server and water dispenser.

However, when the initial sum – $89.9M – came up for consideration, PPP Member of Parliament Anil Nandlall argued that the SARA Act did not identify a line minister, and as such, questioned the basis on which Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Basil Williams was making the request for SARA. In response, the attorney general told the committee that he was the designated Minister under the Act – a position he held fast to throughout the sitting.

It was not long after that PPP Member of Parliament Bishop Juan Edghill sprang to his feet and sought to question the authority under which the Legal Affairs Minister was soliciting supplementary provision for SARA, when no provisions were made for the agency in the 2017 National Budget.
It was on this note that Finance Minister Winston Jordan reminded the Parliamentary Committee that a total of five supplementary financial papers can be placed before the House for consideration in a given year.
“This is a supplementary paper amending the original budget, so it doesn’t have to have a previous budget line item. That is the reason why we have brought a supplementary paper,” Jordan posited.
Displeased with the response to the series of questions churned out during the consideration of the $89.8M subvention, Opposition Chief Chip Gail Teixeira returned to the initial question, questioning the legal affairs minster’s authority to request funding for the agency.

Pointing to Section 14 of the Act, Teixeira argued that SARA, under the watch of the director, is mandated to finance its own operations from assets collected.
According to Section 14, Sub-section 3 of the Act, “the director may authorise payments out of the Recovery of State Assets Fund (a) to facilitate the discharge by SARA of its functions, including commencement of actions for the enforcement of this act.”
Additionally, it states that subject to sub-sections (2) and (3) any sums received by the director shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
Opining that there is a “lacuna” within the legislation, the Opposition Chief Whip said the “Government has to bring an amendment to this act, to put it in order to allow monies to be released to this agency. And therefore I am proposing that all the items under SARA… be postponed until the government puts its act in place.”
As she heckled from across the chamber, Social Protection Minister Amna Ally could be heard saying, “good try, good try, it is not going to happen.”
Holding fast to his position, the legal affairs minister pointed out that SARA became a legal entity only on May 4, 2017, after the SARA Bill, which was passed in the National Assembly in April, was assent to by President David Granger.
“This money is to operationalise the agency, operationalise the agency,” he emphasised.
Turning his attention to the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act (FMAA), PPP front bencher, Irfaan Ali argued that the finance minister erred when producing the supplementary financial paper, pointing out that according to Section 24 of the FMAA, the minister is mandated to produce a supplementary document describing the impact that the variations, if approved, will have to the financial plan outlined in the annual budget.
“If we go through the document provided, I will humbly suggest that we are not in conformity with the FMAA because there is no supplementary document that outlines the impact of the variation, nor is there any document that shows the impact in relation to the annual financial plan,” Ali explained.

In defence, Natural Resources Minister Raphael Trotman, who served in the 10th Parliament as the Speaker of the National Assembly, stood to the floor on a point of order, explaining that in the 10th Parliament the issue arose on a number of occasions and it was the decision of the House to have the finance minister decide on the format to be used and it is up to the House to accept or reject the financial paper.
In a bid to support his argument, Minister Trotman referred to the Speaker’s Ruling No. 5 of 2013.

The ruling, dated April 24, 2013, was based on a request made by Member of Parliament Carl Greenidge for the Speaker to give approval for the matter of Expenditures of Entities Mentioned in Article 222 A of the Constitution not to be considered until the Ministry of Finance withdraws the proposal for Appropriation and submits same in the manner required by the Constitution.
In his ruling as Speaker, Trotman had stated that “the Speaker of the National Assembly cannot compel the government or the minister responsible for finance, to prepare the estimates and or requests for appropriations in any particular format.”
Upon hearing the ruling, the current Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr. Barton Scotland asked the Opposition to show cause why the Speaker’s Ruling No. 5 of 2013 should not be upheld.

The responses were less than desirable and the ruling was upheld allowing for the provisions to be voted on. They were all approved. Notably, it was disclosed by the legal affairs minister that SARA is being housed at the Ministry of the Presidency, and once the funds are made available, a building will be rented, furnished and equipped for full operation.
He has also promised to lay over information on the agency’s organisational chart, and employees’ positions and remunerations.