Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang this afternoon rejected the ex-parte application by Attorney General Anil Nandlall for the restoration of the $21 billion cut from the budget by the National Assembly, but ordered that Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh be allowed to withdraw monies from the Consolidated Fund, as is necessary, for the functioning of the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC).
Justice Chang, in his 33-page ruling, found that the National Assembly’s reduction of the ERC’s budget to $1 was unconstitutional as it did not perform its constitutional duty under Article 222 A(a) of the Constitution.
“In order to enable that constitutional entity and its secretariat to perform its constitutional functions, the court orders the Ministry of Finance to allow all expenditures necessary from time to time for the maintenance of that entity and for the performance of it constitutional function to be charge directly upon the Consolidated Fund (as mandated by the Constitution) until the National Assembly determines a lump sum by way of subvention to meet such expenditures in accordance with Article 222 A(a),” Justice Chang said in his ruling.
The government through Nandlall filed the ex-parte motion, asking the court to grant an order vacating and/or setting aside the budget reduction as well as an interim order to allow Finance Minister Singh to make advances from the Consolidated Fund to restore the original allocations for the agencies affected by the cuts.
However, Justice Chang, while finding that the National Assembly acted outside of its remit in reducing the budget did find that the Appropriation Bill passed by Parliament and which includes the budget cuts and was assented to by President Donald Ramotar was in fact constitutional.
“In summary, the court finds that the act of the National Assembly in cutting or reducing the estimates of expenditure laid by the Minister of Finance under Article 218 of the Constitution was outside its constitutional remit. Nevertheless, the Appropriation Bill laid before and passed by the National Assembly and to which the President assented was not unconstitutional. Since the Constitution (and Parliament) have reposed power to take remedial action against the consequences of those cuts or reduction in the Minister of Finance and not in the court, no interim relief relating thereto can be ordered by the court,” the acting Chief Justice ruled.
Lawyers for Opposition Leader David Granger and Speaker of the House Raphael Trotman in his capacity of leader of the AFC have now been given leave to file an affidavit in answer to Nandlall’s application. The comments made by Chang in his ruling are only summary and since the matter is now in its preliminary stage the final determination would be made after he would have heard arguments by all sides.
The matter continues on September 6.
The affidavit in support of Nandlall’s application was sworn to by Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr Roger Luncheon and averred that no power resides in the National Assembly, either in the Committee of Supply, or at all, to move an amendment to reduce any aspect of the Annual Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure laid by the Minister of Finance.
As a result, Luncheon contended that the two motions moved by MPs Khemraj Ramjattan and Carl Greenidge to effect the budget cuts “amounted not only to an arrogation of powers which the Constitution does not confer upon them, but was also a usurpation of a function which the Constitution exclusively resides in the Executive, thereby, abrogating the doctrine of separation of powers.”
Luncheon argued that the Constitution contemplates that Parliament’s two components, the President, as the supreme executive authority and head of the executive, and the National Assembly, will function constructively and in harmony with each other.
The agencies identified in the application as being affected by the budget cuts are Office of the President, including Cabinet, Advisers to Cabinet, the Defence Board, Presidential Advisers, the Government Information Agency, the National Communications Network; Office of the Prime Minister, and specifically the Guyana Power and Light; the Ministry of Finance, and in particular the Ethnic Relations Commission, the State Planning Secretariat, and the Low Carbon Development Strategy; and the Guyana Elections Commission. Luncheon’s affidavit also claimed that hundreds of persons who are directly employed by affected offices and agencies are now, without any fault of theirs or their employers, rendered jobless, colliding with their legitimate expectation of gainful continued employment.
