Goolsarran dismisses gov’t rationale for $4.55B spending

Government is seeking shelter for $4.55B of extra-budgetary expenditure under an article of the constitution that is not applicable, former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran says and he roasted Finance Minister, Dr Ashni Singh actions as disrespectful and contemptuous of the National Assembly.

The government on June 19, 2014 tabled Financial Paper 1 of 2014 as a statement of excess seeking to clear money which had not been approved by the opposition as part of its $36.7B paring of the 2014 budget. Among the agencies affected were GINA and NCN which the opposition have had longstanding concerns over and had therefore sought to deny provisions to for the last three years. Despite this, these two agencies were funded for the first half of this year and Singh’s statement of excess was meant to cover this.

The opposition has since signalled that they will not vote for what they term the unlawful expenditure by Singh and the financial paper has brought the country closer to a possible no-confidence motion which can bring down the government and trigger new elections. In recent days, President Donald Ramotar and senior government officials have scrambled to address the assertions by the opposition that the expenditure is illegal.

Yesterday, Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall issued a statement defending the Minister of Finance over the expenditure.

Nandlall cited article 218 (3) of the constitution as follows:

218 (3 )  “If in respect of any financial year it is found –

(a)  that the amount appropriated by the ( A ) Appropriation Act for any purpose is insufficient or that a need has arisen for expenditure for a purpose for which no amount has been appropriated by that Act ; or

( b) that any monies have been expended for any purpose in excess of the amount appropriated for that purpose by the Appropriation Act or for a purpose for which no amount has been appropriated by that Act, a supplementary estimate or, as the case may be, a statement of excess showing the sums required or spent shall be laid before the National Assembly by the Minister responsible for finance (or any other Minister designated by the President)”.

Nandlall said that in spending the monies as he did, and laying in the National Assembly a Statement of Excess of the sums spent , the Minister of Finance has acted in accordance with “the letter and spirit of Article 218  (3).   

However, Goolsarran writing in his column of today’s edition of Stabroek News said the reference to Article 218 (3) is not applicable.

He argued that one section of Article 218 (3) caters for expenditure above what had been appropriated. The excess would usually be a small figure relative to the amount that had been voted. However, this would not be applicable to the present situation as the opposition had not voted any money for these programmes. Article 218(3) (b) which is what the government is relying on is not applicable to this scenario, Goolsarran said, as it may have been intended for extreme circumstances such as a national emergency.

“While Article 218 (3) envisages a second situation regarding excess expenditure where there has been no appropriation, in my years of experience as Auditor General, I cannot recall any instance of moneys being withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund for this purpose. The reason is simple: (a) there is recourse to the use of the Contingencies Fund, assuming all the criteria have been met regarding the urgency of the expenditure; or (b) there is provision for a supplementary estimate to be tabled in the Assembly seeking prior authorization of the expenditure. Besides, there was deep respect for the general principle that it is Parliament that controls the public purse and that no expenditure can be incurred without Parliamentary approval. The supremacy of Parliament in this regard was unquestioned.

“The second part of Article 218 (3) may have been inserted to cater for some extreme circumstance, for example, a national disaster of great magnitude, where it is not possible to secure the ex ante approval of the Assembly, or recourse to the Contingencies Fund is not possible because it may have been exhausted”, Goolsarran asserted.

He said that one would have thought that Singh would have employed the provision in the first part of Article 218 (3) for prior authorization by way of supplementary estimate. He said that if the Assembly denied the request then the expenditure would not be incurred.

“Why run the risk of authorising withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund when there is so much uncertainty as to whether the Assembly will approve of the related expenditure? Should the Assembly reject Financial Paper 1/2014 partially or in its entirety, will the Minister not be held liable for causing unauthorised expenditure to take place?” Goolsarran asked.

In his column today, he said he had suggested that in order to restore the budget for the essential services affected by the Assembly’s decision, the Finance Minister could make withdrawals from the Contingencies Fund until such time that the Assembly met to consider a supplementary estimate covering the rest of the year. He said that the combined Opposition had indicated that it would have no problem with such an estimate.

Goolsarran said that the Minister followed neither of the two courses but has authorized withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund to cover expenditure where there was a specific non-approval for such by the opposition majority in the Assembly.

“The Minister’s action can be interpreted as one of disrespect and contempt for the Assembly, comprising members duly elected to represent the citizens of this country and of which he himself is an elected member. He appears to have elevated himself above the highest decision-making body in the land in the belief that it is his budget. Article 218 (1), however, specifically refers to `estimates of revenues and expenditure of Guyana’. The budget is therefore that of the country, with the Minister acting as merely a conduit for its presentation that could have been done by `any other Minister designated by the President’”, Goolsarran argued.

Latest in Local News

default placeholder

Warriors win nail-biter

The Guyana Amazon Warriors began their 2016 Hero Caribbean Premier League (CPL) T20 title pursuit with a four-wicket win over the St Kitts and Nevis Patriots with one ball to spare in last night’s match played at Warner Park.

Omar Shariff

Ministry of the Presidency official Shariff sent on leave pending SOCU investigation

Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of the Presidency (MOTP), Omar Shariff has been sent on leave by Minister of State, Joseph Harmon, a release from MOTP said today.

default placeholder

Body found in rubble of Wales fire

At 01:30hrs today, police say that a fire destroyed a home at Wales, West Bank Demerara, and the body of an unidentified person was subsequently discovered among the rubble.

default placeholder

Exxon Mobil says second well confirms `significant’ oil find

Exxon Mobil Corporation today said that drilling results from the Liza-2 well, the second exploration well in the Stabroek block offshore Guyana, confirm a world-class find with a recoverable deposit of between 800 million and 1.4 billion oil-equivalent barrels.

default placeholder

Proposed law bans smoking in public places

Proposed tobacco control legislation will see a ban on smoking in public places while cigarette advertising will no longer be allowed and pictorial and text health warnings will have to be displayed on at least 75% of the packaging on tobacco products.

default placeholder

$800M in specialty hospital steel ‘awarded’ to BK

Government needs to explain why about $800 million worth of steel and other equipment that were earmarked for the now-frozen specialty hospital project, went solely to businessman Brian Tiwarie, former President Donald Ramotar says.

Ezekiel Murray

Truck driver jailed for three years for crash causing child’s death

Clyde Barker, the truck driver who was accused of running over 12-year-old Ezekiel Murray along the Friendship Public Road last year and causing his death, was yesterday sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.

default placeholder

Businessman jailed and fined over gun, ammo possession

A businessman was yesterday sentenced to two years imprisonment and fined $100,000 after being found guilty of illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition.

Comments

About these comments

The comments section is intended to provide a forum for reasoned and reasonable debate on the newspaper's content and is an extension of the newspaper and what it has become well known for over its history: accuracy, balance and fairness. We reserve the right to edit or delete comments which contain attacks on other users, slander, coarse language and profanity, and gratuitous and incendiary references to race and ethnicity.

Stay updated! Follow Stabroek News on Facebook or Twitter.

Get the day's headlines from SN in your inbox every morning: