Dear Editor,
Much concern has been expressed about the lawlessness of the current administration and its disregard for constitutional and legal obligations. Since taking office, the government has shown scant regard for financial regulations and the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act (FM&AA) Act. The criticisms reached a peak when once again the Auditor General pointed to the abuse of the Contingencies Fund (CF), a kind of float that should be used for emergency expenditure only.
The Ministry of Finance (MOF) has stated that the Minister has sole responsibility for the release of monies from the CF. That also means that if he abuses that trust, the consequences have to be borne by him. Otherwise, there would be no restraint on him undertaking expenditure from the Fund for items that do not meet the legal criteria which are:
Urgent
Unavoidable
Unforeseen
In the past, CF advances have been made in December to pay salaries for the previous January – unpredictable? Unforeseen?
An Assistant Commissioner of Police was penalized for saying that the Force had not received funds for overtime associated with elections which the Minister claimed they had utilised. Funds claimed for meals for children at a hinterland boarding school were allegedly similarly not paid, and there is also the matter of funds claimed for overtime payment to elections scrutineers.
Instead of dealing with these frauds perpetrated on the Parliament and public, the MOF explains that CF requests have to be laid in the Parliament. No one thought otherwise. They also argue that some, indeed most of the expenditures, were approved by the Parliament including members of the opposition. No one has doubted that. But the fact that some were approved even though they were known or believed to be fraudulent and improper is only a reflection that the parliamentary opposition has still a long way to go in order to get its House in order. It is not proof that the expenditures conformed to the requirements of the law. During the course of the debates, all the opposition members were of the view that a good part of the expenditures approved, had been spent improperly.
Many of those expenditures, plus those that the House refused to approve (the 8%) were subsequently deemed by the Auditor General Office, which looks at expenditures after parliament has approved them and after the CF has been approved, to be abuses. The AG has an audit and compliance function in this parliamentary system and the items not approved have been considered to be wrong. Whether it is 8 or 88% is irrelevant. The Minister has been in effect given a power of attorney by the people of Guyana but instead of the agreed funds being spent on the fuel for the public generator some have been spent elsewhere. It is fraud and misappropriation. These are expenditures which the opposition and the AG have agreed are out of order. The Ministry of Finance is silent on these. Can they really be suggesting that because most of the money has been spent according to the law, what has been done with the balance amounting to $8B is immaterial?
I read with some disbelief the Ministry of Finance’s attempt to clarify this matter which it calls, “a misunderstanding over the purpose and use of the Contingencies Fund circulating in the media.” The clarification provided reflects the arrogance of the government and its spokesmen rather than any public or media misunderstanding.
The CF represents money used from the Consolidated Fund and which when approved by the House has to be replenished. In that sense it is like a float. It has to be replenished if the Consolidated Fund is not to be reduced. For it to be replenished it is not sufficient to report the expenditure to Parliament but to also secure the Parliament’s approval for the sums expended. To suggest that because 92% of moneys spent under the CF were approved means that the Parliament agrees that 100% of it was properly spent is to dream. In fact the money not properly spent will not be cleared.
The MOF report almost suggests that all the PPP has to do is to lay a Bill with the CF expenses. Let me make it clear: although it has not been mentioned approval of the House is required. That approval is required both for the CF Advance and for a Statement of Excess.
Nowhere does the constitution empower the Minister to spend without prior approval of Parliament and where the Minister is authorized to spend he has to get permission to clear the Fund at the next sitting of the Parliament. In fact he usually comes long afterwards including in the new year, although the article explicitly says the last CF request should be made in November. These are all abuses and the media has reported them accordingly.
What aspect of that is it that the ministry feels the media do not understand?
Yours faithfully,
Carl B Greenidge
