Opposition lapses on sketchy $5B allocation for cost of living relief

Jun 09, 2022 News

…Former Finance Minister stresses need for transparency and accountability

Kaieteur News – The People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) government has begun to dole out portions of a massive $5B sum budgeted for cost of living relief.

Agriculture Minister Zulfikar Mustapha interacts with fisherfolk as part of government’s latest cash grant relief

However, the way the government continues to hand out the money has come into question, more so, the manner in which the “block sum” was allowed to pass in Parliament.
Former Finance Minister Winston Jordan in an invited comment told Kaieteur News he believes that the manner in which the money was passed in Parliament, does not coincide with the law’s intention on transparency.
Jordan is adamant the law does not permit for the budgeting and passing of any block sum, for which its purpose or spending is to be determined at a later date.
Even as the sum is being utilised to support citizens through this rough financial period, Jordan insists that the information is “too vague” as government spending should be transparent, especially with such a large sum of money.
He warned the opposition to pay more attention to government spending, and urged that in this case, a motion be moved in parliament for government to come back to the House and clearly define its plans for the $5B.
Government after the approval of the 2022 budget, decided to provide cash grants to citizens in riverine areas, farmers, fishermen and one billion dollars for fertilizers, among other initiatives but this was not specified during the budget debates. Jordan explained that even if government wanted money to deal with the cost of living as an emergency, they did not have to include that sum in the budget since there is a Contingency Fund that allows for spending in unforeseen circumstances.
The cost of living issues were known and the government ought to have identified their intentions, Jordan insisted.
“They knew what was happening, they knew all these things and so it should have been highlighted by item,” the former minister stated.
Additionally, it is unclear under which item heading the relief fund fell. If the money was placed under a different heading, approved in the budget and is now being used for the stated cost of living relief, then this would be contrary to what the law states, Jordan maintains.
He was of the view, if government had the cost of living relief money for agriculture, health or any other area, it should have been under those headings. The only anonymous heading in the budget, Jordan advised, is that pertaining to wages and salaries, “every other item must be identified to be debated on.”
According to Jordan, in this case, the Opposition did not have a say on the $5B before the money was approved and does not have a say now that it is being spent.
He was adamant the $5B allocation should not have been approved in Parliament in the first place. Whether it was a “mistake” that the sums were approved without the necessary scrutiny, the Opposition must now call the government back to the Parliament, and have them stipulate how the money is being spent and then debated on before anymore is dished out.
The Former Finance Minister reminded that the Standing Orders stipulate how the money is to be represented for spending and as such, the manner in which the money was approved and is now being spent is setting a bad precedent.
Jordan also questioned what would obtain if the government were to decide next year that they would allocate $70B for matters to be identified at a later date.
As such, Jordan urged the Opposition, A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC), to not be sidetracked and stay focus on matters of transparency and accountability in government spending.
The government sporadically announces uses for the $5B relief money, Jordan reiterated, and reminded that the sums exact use is not known until government states its intention.
The former Finance Minister is of the view, there is no law that allows for the government, “to wake up one morning and decide they will give the fishermen so much, they will give the farmers so much.”
Outspoken economist, Ramon Gaskin, also shared similar concerns. He told this publication, “…this $5B that they say they are spending, the law doesn’t allow for that. It doesn’t allow you to set aside a sum of money and the president can draw from it whenever he wants. It’s illegal, it has to be a line item because the way the estimates are prepared as part of the budget and Appropriation Act, it’s the line item that has to be in there. They can’t set aside any sum to figure out later what they want to do with it. There is no such thing.”
He too believes, the opposition is dropping the ball on this matter. “(Opposition Leader Aubrey) Norton is not doing his work, he is worried about who is shaking whose hand,” Gaskin lamented.
According to Gaskin, Parliament should never have allowed the sum to go through. As such, he too believes government must be called in to explain the sum as it is included in the budget estimates. Article 13 member, Dr. Yog Mahadeo had also raised his voice in relation to this matter. He too called for transparency in spending the cost of living relief and questioned how much longer was the government going to offer cash grants rather than increasing the minimum wage. Unless there are mechanisms in place, he said the cash grants and other reliefs could be seen as campaigning tools.
It should be noted that sums from the Natural Resources Fund (NRF) has also been incorporated into the 2022 estimates. It gave the budget a more than 30 percent boost compared to last year’s estimates.