Parliament to probe Finance Minister’s excess spending

Jul 25, 2014 News

---

– Govt. mulls options

Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, has ruled that the spending of $4.5B by Finance Minister Dr. Ashni

Singh without the approval of the National Assembly has raised sufficiently serious questions to be inquired into by the Committee of Privileges.
The Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, has since responded, saying that it is for the courts to decide on constitutional matters and not a Committee of Parliament.
Nandlall who has responded to the Speaker’s ruling on his social media ‘facebook’ page says that the Article of the Constitution that the Finance Minister is relying on regarding the expenditure is an exception to the section that primarily deals with expenditure from the Consolidated Fund.
Article 217 of the Constitution provides that no monies shall be expended from the Consolidated Fund except by way of an Appropriation Act, commonly referred to as the Budget, but Article 218 (3) (B) provides for the Minister to make an expenditure and subsequently provide the National Assembly with a Statement of Excess.
It has been argued that the Minister illegally spent the money and the Alliance for Change (AFC) has lodged a formal complaint with the Guyana Police Force and the Director of Public Prosecutions over what the party deems illegal expenditure to the tune of $4.5B.
Nandlall, in response to the ruling by the Speaker, says that while he is bound to be guided by Trotman’s decision, “I do not consider myself restrained from expressing a view on the ruling, even a critical and outspoken one.”
According to Nandlall, the issue raised in the Motion by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU)’s Carl Greenidge, to have the Minister committed to a Committee of Privileges, is purely a legal one.
“It concerns the interpretation of several provisions of the Constitution, including Articles 217 and 218…Article 217 essentially provides when, and in what circumstances, monies can be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund.”
According to Nandlall, Article 218 provides for monies to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund outside of the strictures imposed by Article 217.
“In short, Article 218 is but an exception to Article 217…In other words, Article 217 sets out the general rule and Article 218, the exceptions to that rule.”
He contends that this is precisely why the wording of Article 218 succeeds the words of Article 217.
Nandlall argues that the very two articles were examined by the Chief Justice (ag), Ian Chang in the Budget Cut case and interpreted along the same vein he is suggesting.
“The Chief Justice did so in both his interim as well as his final rulings…The Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and all the lawyers in the National Assembly for the Opposition participated in this case, either as parties or as attorneys at law…I presume therefore that they have read the two rulings. Indeed they have appealed.”

Nandlall has since argued that what has been referred to the Privileges Committee by the Speaker is hardly a matter of “privilege,” rather it is a matter of law and constitutional interpretation.
“The simple truth is, that, a Member of the House cannot act in conformity with the Constitution and at the same time violate a privilege…Constitutional supremacy, which is the cornerstone upon which our constitutional democracy rests, mandates that the glories of the common law, statute law, by-laws, standing orders, rules and regulations and indeed administrative policies, must bend and bow to the provisions of the Constitution.”
According to Nandlall, under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Court, and not the Privileges Committee of the National Assembly, or any other forum for that matter, is exclusively vested with the constitutional responsibility of interpreting and determining matters of law, whenever there is any controversy.
He said (Speaker) Trotman has fallen into error in determining that there was a serious question of privilege and transmitting same to the Privileges Committee.
Nandlall, who is the legal advisor to the Government, is of the opinion that the Privileges Committee is without jurisdiction to deal with the matter for several reasons.
He argues that the persons who will constitute the Committee will come from the membership of political parties that have an interest to serve and “have indeed said publicly that the Minister has violated the Constitution and the law; in short they have made up their minds.”
Nandlall opined that it will be impossible for the Minister to get a fair hearing at the Committee.
He said that the persons who will sit on this Committee are simply unqualified to determine the legal issues which will arise.
He said too that, significantly, the very issue is sub judice, and is the subject of an appeal pending before the Guyana Court of Appeal, and therefore ought not to be the subject of any consideration, either in the National Assembly as a whole, or in any of its Committees.
As a result, Nandlall said that over the next few days, Government will be considering its options, and a resort to a legal challenge of this ruling is one of them.

---

---