Choosing the topics for inclusion in this part of Budget Focus has its own challenges. It is one of identifying pressing issues which combine budgetary implications and wider social, economic and constitutional relevance. There are no firm written criteria guiding the process which easily extends for the entire budget cycle and is only closed by the presentation of the Budget.
Some problems it seems never go away: those that are intractable, challenging, and politically sensitive like subsidies. Note how the government always promises but always avoids tax reform, the NIS and constitutional issues. Free from the considerations that deprive politicians and public commentators of honest discussion on such issues Ram & McRae in Focus 2013 selected, added to, deleted and finally settled on the following:
– Amaila Falls Project
– Chavez
– Parliamentary Office
– NIS
– Chinese
– Inequality/Minimum Wage
– University of Guyana
– Budget Cuts
We believe all are important. But for its sweeping constitutional significance with relevance to the democratic polity, we highlight the commentary on a decision of the Chief Justice (ag.) on the constitutionality of the cuts by the National Assembly of certain line items in the 2012 Budget. In what the Chief Justice described as views which are not final in “a matter merely in its preliminary stage” his ruling has been taken as setting aside a most sacred right, function and duty of the National Assembly to control the Consolidated Fund, the public purse, the people’s money.
The view was expressed within a one-judge Constitutional Court, a situation which is probably unique to Guyana. The principal defendants in the matter brought by the Attorney General were Raphael Trotman and David Granger, respectively Speaker and Leader of the Opposition of the National Assembly. It seems neither chose to instruct their attorneys to pursue the matter to finality, leaving the matter in the limbo of confusion.
While we emphasise the interim nature of the decision, the standing of the court gives its rulings, however preliminary, considerable weight. This was no private law matter but one of great constitutional import: it represented a drastic devaluation of the role of the elected representatives of the people. Unfortunately, the matter was not taken to finality and both the defendants and the court might reflect on the warning by US law professor John C. Eastman that “The lesson they [judges] should draw is that when [judges] are moving beyond the clear command of the Constitution, [they] should be very hesitant about shutting down a political debate.”
Ram & McRae is of the view that the decision reflects a dangerous threat to the country’s nascent democracy. US Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is reported to have said that “A democracy should not be dependent for its major decisions on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say.”
While in Guyana recourse is available to the Court of Appeal and the Caribbean Court of Justice, no efficient justice system must rely for its jurisprudence mainly on appeals. We consider a system in which major decisions are taken by a single Judge acting in a higher capacity as needing immediate review.
