THE AFC’S BARK IS NOT MATCHED BY ITS BITE AT THE MOMENT

Mar 26, 2013 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The illness of Nigel Hughes, the Chairman of the Alliance for Change and one of its parliamentarians, will throw up an interesting equation in the National Assembly when it begins to consider the 2012 Budget.
The combined opposition has a slim one-seat majority in the National Assembly but with Hughes undergoing treatment overseas and being accompanied by his wife who is also a member of parliament. It could see the combined opposition being two seats shy of denying the estimates of expenditure of the government.
Even if his Mrs. Hughes returns to vote on the motion to approve the appropriations, it would mean that there would be a tie when there is a call for a division. As such, the opposition without the vote of Nigel Hughes would be unable to disapprove of the Budget because they would be one vote short of a majority. And if Mrs. Cathy Hughes is also not present, the government would have the majority to pass the estimates. (Nigel Hughes is not a member of parliament so the premise is false. However, the columnist will be allowed to continue in this vein.)
Despite these permutations and the ruling of the court, the AFC continues to insist that it has the right to slice the Budget. The courts have held that the opposition cannot cut the Budget; they can only approve or not approve. While this is just a preliminary ruling, it must be borne in mind that rulings of the court must be complied with until such time as they are overturned or reversed. Society will descend into anarchy if bodies or persons decide to not comply with rulings of the court, regardless of how they may feel about a specific judgment.
The AFC is insisting that it can cut the Budget because the ruling by the Chief Justice was just a preliminary ruling. It should bear in mind a number of things. Firstly, an interim injunction is a temporary measure that is instituted until the final determination of the matter under consideration. Should citizens adopt the same position with interim injunctions as the AFC is adopting with the CJ’s ruling? Should citizens not comply with an interim injunction until it is made absolute? Imagine the implications for the rule of law should citizens decide to not comply with interim injunctions.
The fact that the Chief Justice made a preliminary ruling does not negate its potency. It is a ruling, one that was of significant length, and it was made no doubt because the necessity existed for the National Assembly and other interested parties to be so guided. It should be recalled that there was also a preliminary ruling in the case of the challenge to the denial of the right of Minister Rohee to speak in the National Assembly and when the final ruling came there was a clear and unambiguous injunction that it was binding.
In that ruling the Chief Justice had noted that while it was not for the courts to interfere with the workings and operations of the National Assembly, the court was the guardian of the constitution and has the jurisdiction to determine whether the actions of the National Assembly were in contravention with the Constitution.
He also observed that while parliament can determine the extent if rights and privileges of its members, so too can the courts since such determination concerns questions of law, and when the court so determines it is “final and binding.”
The AFC in refusing to accept the rulings of the court in so far as budget cuts are concerned is taking this nation down that slippery slope of anarchy. But the AFC’s threat may end up being purely of academic nature because with the likely absence of Mr. Nigel Hughes due to him having to seek overseas medical treatment, the opposition may end up one vote shy of a majority, and if his wife is not present to vote, the opposition may be two votes shy.
The opposition therefore is not likely to have the majority needed to deny the estimates of the government. However, if Mrs. Hughes is present, then there will be a deadlock. And because the Standing Orders require that there be a majority of those present and voting before a motion to approve the estimates can be approved, it also means that the government would not be able to pass the estimates should there be a tie when the division is taken.
In the case of a deadlock in the National Assembly, the Speaker does not have a casting vote. But the Standing Order also provides that the motion will die should there be a deadlock. As such, the motion by the government will die if there is a tie in the division.
The AFC’s talks about cutting the Budget may be a tactical maneuver to deflect attention from its own dilemma posed by the possible absence of one or two of its members when the Assembly considers the estimates in two weeks time. Right now the opposition’s one-seat majority is tenuous.
In the present situation, the AFC’s bark is not likely to be matched by its bite.

---

---