Constitutional law cannot be selectively applied

Feb 22, 2014 Letters

DEAR EDITOR,
Knock me down with a feather if this makes sense. Should the opposition PNC/APNU-AFC, in contempt of court, again slash the 2014 budget, less development resources would be spent by the PPP/C government and substantially, more Guyanese would greatly benefit. In other words, when the PNC/APNU-AFC opposition keeps on slashing money from the 2014 budget, Guyanese would be better off!
Amazing? Sounds like fancy footwork or stupidity at its best?
Conscious that the PNC/APNU-AFC opposition is the inevitable government in waiting, why do the parties persist in damaging their credibility? Why a former military leader without any government experience is now in charge of the PNC and seems unable to command his failed shadow finance minster to do his duty is a tragedy for all Guyanese.
But no minority government can effectively continue to govern, not by shared government, but by compromises and accommodation. Talks are paramount.
“All are involved. All will be consumed” reminds National poet Mr Martin Carter.
Should a prolific visible advocate of conservation of Guyana’s natural forestry resources go atop the trees, to register disagreement with the Honourable Chief Justice’s ruling on the budget?
Was Ms Janette Bulkan’s indeliberate, flashing obfuscation of Guyana’s constitution and its legalities to aid and abet its contempt? What is transparent is the Judiciary’s ruling may not mesh with her proud conservation objectives. See SN of 19-2-2014 and KN of 20-2-14.
The legal reality is that the 1980 Guyana constitution specifically pinpoints that the National Assembly cannot in part by Article 171 (a) “proceed upon any Bill (including any amendment to a Bill) which, in the opinion of the person presiding, makes provision for any of the following purposes:
(i) for imposing or increasing any tax; (ii) for imposing any charge upon the Consolidated Fund or any other public fund of Guyana or for altering any such charge otherwise than by reducing it….” Except on the recommendation or with the consent of the Cabinet signified by a Minister…” This has found a few like Ms Bulkan not prepared before diving into the swimming pool. The desire to swim like the right to disagree in a functional democracy cannot be in dispute. What is incorrect and unjustified is seen in her flawed conclusions. Ms Bulkan shares a flawed wisdom to let us know:
“So the National Assembly cannot without Cabinet/Ministerial agreement impose a tax or increase a tax. Nor can it change any proposed use of the Consolidated Fund other than by reducing the amount of the proposed use. But Article 171 (a) (ii) allows the Assembly to reduce proposed expenditure from the Consolidated Fund even if the Cabinet/Minister disagrees”.
Where and how does Ms Bulkan find constitutional justification to reduce the budget “even if the Cabinet/Minister disagrees” to invalidate the Honourable Chief Justice’s ruling?
Here is the deliberate distortion which sows confusion to the unfamiliar.
By acrobatic logic, she quotes the 1980 constitution and seems reasonable enough to confirm parts of the Judiciary’s decision as correct. Why does she undermine her previously guided reasonableness to ignore, deny and dismiss the democratic constitutional imperative of prior cabinet consent and recommendation of the budget through the relevant Minister?
“O noble judge! O learned judge! A Daniel come to judgement!” (Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice). The Minister is not God, or his critics all devils, and vice versa. Even as God changes her mind it is no comparison whatsoever, only the Finance Minster, who even if he disagrees has to signal agreement after necessary compromises in the Committee of Supply. If not, the opposition says no budget, and the National Assembly remains gridlock constipated with the government grinding to a halt. The final alternative is fresh elections.
In quoting the 1980 Guyana constitution, Ms Bulkan will have found that any changes, alternations or reaffirmations can only be through the judicial process from within the same constitution so specified.
The Honourable Chief Justice has done his constitutional duty in his clarified ruling. What he has not done is prevent, direct, deny, compromise their independence, or obstruct the legislature from talking with each other, or making compromises to make Guyana progress.
Guyana has oil and “oil don’t spoil” as Dr Eric Williams boasted about Trinidad. Either Guyanese swim together or fry in their oil.
Sultan Mohamed

Latest News

Constitutional law cannot be selectively applied

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Bakewell supports Kashif and Shanghai Futsal tourney

Captains Face Off ahead of Petra-Republic Bank...

CWI announces women’s squad for...

The Mangra Family: Building a Dynasty of Strength...

Windies break home Test drought with 201-run win...

President Ali sees sports as ‘centrepiece’ of...

Features/Columnists

The illusion of compliance

Rising Gun Crimes in the Caribbean: Urgent Action required by all

Defamation allegations, libel retaliation

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Constitutional law cannot be selectively applied

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]