THE OPPOSITION MUST UNDERSTAND ITS ROLE

Aug 26, 2012 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

 

There should no longer be any questions as to whether the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL) is legally obligated to pay its revenues or surpluses into the Consolidated Fund.
There was never a case for this to happen. NICIL is a body corporate with its own legal personality. As such its revenues are delinked from the use of public funds but this does mean that it should not be accountable for the use of those funds. Indeed there are financial requirements that impose legal disclosure obligations on all corporate bodies. As such NICIL can still be held accountable under the Companies Act and by the parliament.
The opposition AFC wants the funds held by NICIL to be passed through the Consolidated Fund. They want this not because it will make the funds more accountable but in order to be able to dictate to what uses it should be put.
That responsibility is, however, the sole prerogative of the Executive and it is something that both the AFC and APNU need to understand.  The right of the Executive to have responsibility of government spending and policy goes to the heart of the separation of powers.
It is not for the legislature to dictate government projects and spending priorities. Their role is to pass debate policies, exercise oversight and to pass legislation. It is not to try, as the opposition is attempting to do, to run the Executive from the opposition benches. This is in breach of the separation of powers and should not be tolerated.
Obviously, the opposition can advocate policies and projects they wish funded. But they must not get carried away by the idea that because they hold a majority of one in the National Assembly that they have a right to decide which projects the government will pursue and which they cannot.
During the second corruption debate the seven part series being sponsored by the National Communications Network, the representative for the Alliance for Change, once again indicated that the funds held by NICIL should be paid over to the Consolidated Fund. The reason for this request is simple. The AFC will then utilize the overall parliamentary majority to frustrate government spending.
The AFC does not believe that the proposed Marriott-branded hotel is commercially viable.  As such they are not likely to support this project. They are not as yet publicly opposed to the other controversial project which is the hydroelectric project. And it is not hard to ascertain how it is they are opposed to the construction of the hotel and opposed to what is believed to be another heavily priced project, the hydroelectricity project being pursued by the government.
The AFC is going to turn out to be the biggest disappointment of all the political parties. They will fade into political insignificance if they continue to attach themselves to the tail of A Partnership for National Unity.
The AFC has to be consistent. It cannot on the one hand oppose the hotel project while supporting the hydroelectric project when the price of electricity when this project is completed is not likely to reduce tariffs by more than 40%. They should have only supported the project if the tariff reduction was between 40%-60%.
Just after the Budget debate a controversy arose about a contract in the public health sector. The AFC asked where were the funds for that contract coming from, not realizing that they had supported the estimates of expenditure under which that contract fell. So on the one hand they claim to be opposed to certain arrangements, but on the other hand they voted funds to pay for that contract.
All of these problems are arising because the opposition is acting under the delusion that its majority of one vests it with powers to control the Executive. As such, instead of paying greater attention to its core responsibilities of oversight and the passage of laws, the opposition is burdening itself with trying to constrain the executive.
This is not its role. Let the government do its thing and expose them for what they are doing. In this way, the opposition can show the people they are exercising proper stewardship of their mandate.
By now the opposition should have been using its majority in the Public Accounts Committee to be rigorously scrutinizing government spending, including spending by NICIL.  But just how many public officials have been summoned to appear in front of the PAC since the elections of last November?
Instead what we have had are motions upon motions. Motions passed by the legislature are not legally binding on the Executive and if the opposition does not understand this, then they do not understand the separation of powers.
The opposition should also not be frustrating the actions of the government. Such an approach is bound to backfire because the people will be peeved at what is taking place and will use the next possible opportunity at the polls to reject the opposition.
Then there will be no legislative power and no chance of ever gaining executive power.

---

---