‘Illegally’ spent $4.5B…Nandlall attempting to usurp powers of Parliament – Greenidge

Jul 26, 2014 News

---

Following the comments of Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, over the decision by Speaker of the House, Raphael Trotman, on the alleged illegal expenditure of in excess of $4.5B, Shadow Minister, Carl Greenidge is contending that, at this stage the question of separation of powers should indeed be pursued by the ruling regime.

“It is a principle they routinely respect in the breach,” said Greenidge.
According to the opposition Member of Parliament, the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) regime, the AG, a Cabinet member, sits in the House and participates in the examination and passage of legislation.
He purports to vet such legislation when it is passed, although for an obvious reason there is no constitutional provision for his interference at that point.
“He also purports to pronounce on the constitutionality of the legislation and advises the Presidency not to assent to properly passed legislation; simply because it is politically inconvenient…He sits in the legislature and is in bed with the Executive!  Where is the separation?”
According to Greenidge, the Courts are supposed to be separate from the Legislature but like the Executive, they are now being invited by the AG to usurp the functions of the legislature.
Greenidge argues that the Constitution reserves, for the National Assembly only, the right to set its rules and procedures including the disciplining of its members, MPs.
“The call for the Chief Justice to intervene suggests that he can exclusively or jointly discipline Members of Parliament. It is yet another example of the erosion of the separation of powers.”
Greenidge said, too, that if a Minister refuses to adhere to a decision of which he was a part and which he took to the President for enactment, “how can he refuse to implement it without bringing the actions of the Assembly into disrepute ad ridicule. That is the basis on which the motion of censure was laid.”
He recalled that even as the Assembly declined to provide monies for the projects and entities engaged in unprofessional and often unconstitutional activities, the Minister was illegally authorizing the expenditure.
“He continued after the decision…The Assembly took a decision, the Minister acted contrary to that decision.”
According to Greenidge, determining the content and size of the Appropriation Act is not the responsibility of the Courts and while the interpretation of the Act is their responsibility, the indiscipline and contempt the Minister showed the Assembly is not.
“Contrary to the AG’s assertion, the censure is not about the interpretation of the Act but about yet another act of contempt the Minister has shown to the decisions of the Assembly.”
He said that the specious legal arguments provided by an Attorney General who confuses the games to which he has been accustomed to playing as a criminal lawyer, with his role as an AG who is supposed to provide a strict interpretation of the law and the Constitution for the benefit of the Cabinet and ultimately for the national benefit.
“How much longer must a country which has produced at least three of the region’s top five lawyers of all time, put up with this type of AG…It is not that long ago when he was falsely claiming that the photocopying of  copyrighted material from textbooks was legally defensible.”
Greenidge recalled too, that it is a matter of weeks since the Caribbean Court of Justice told him that he could not justify maintaining a discriminatory tax against the importers of containers by pleading malfeasance on the part of the Legislature or worse yet, the members of the Opposition in it.
“The CCJ rejected the pleas and arguments of the PPP regime as having no merit whatsoever… Yet, here we go again.”
Greenidge said that in dealing with constitutional matters, the Courts in their wisdom have allocated all the very important Constitutional cases to date to the same judge whose pronouncements on several of the matters, have been so worded that the government has been able to continue to pursue unhampered actions which conflict with any commonsense and historical reading of the rights of the Legislature.
Greenidge said that those rulings have made the Courts in general and its capacity the subject of widespread ridicule, possibly unfairly.
“In responding positively to the AG’s most recent threatened action, the Courts will be sowing more seeds for the destruction of the last vestiges of the separation of powers and the gutting of democracy in Guyana.”
According to Greenidge, what the AG and PPP will seek to argue before the Courts as constituting the so-called executive function, is a breach of the separation of powers and part of the process of dictatorial governance, executive lawlessness and a cover for the rampant corruption which has characterized and haunted Guyana for the last 10 to 20 years.

---

---