Dear Editor,
I had hoped that having read my letter in Stabroek News of 2022.05.17 and the omission identified therein, Mr. Goolsarran would have done the right thing, accepted the oversight and offered a suitable apology to the readers. Instead, in his letter in Stabroek News of 2022.05.18, under the caption, ‘I disagree with Mr Jordan’s argument’, he dug in his heels. I had difficulty understanding his response, since he failed to advance any argument to refute my contentions, Yet, he rather boldly ended his missive “We maintain our last week’s statement position that all ‘’’withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund during the period May-August 2020 would have been devoid of constitutional/legislative authority’”.
Editor, I have in my possession a legal opinion, dated 2019.12.13, which originated from the Office of the Attorney General. The issue that was the subject of the legal opinion was funding for GECOM to hold elections. By way of background, GECOM had projected to be in a position to hold elections sometime in the last quarter of 2019. However, when it became evident that elections were not going to be held in 2019 and knowing that all unspent balances in the possession of government agencies had to be returned to the Consolidated Fund, the Chairman of GECOM, Madame Justice (Retired) Claudette Singh, SC, wrote to me on 2019.09.26, requesting my advice for funding GECOM in the first quarter of 2020.
I raised the Chairman’s concerns with Cabinet. In turn, Cabinet mandated the Attorney General to provide the relevant guidance. That guidance is the subject of the legal opinion referred to earlier. It was based on that guidance that I was able to respond appropriately to the Chairman. With Parliament being dissolved on 2019.12.30, the operative section of the Constitution for withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund, in the absence of an Appropriation Act, is Article 219(3), which was quoted in its entirety in my letter of 2022.05.18. Importantly, page 5 of the legal opinion states, “It is important to note that the 1/12 mentioned in section 36 of the FMA does not apply to the Article 219(3) of the Constitution. Based on sub-article (3) sums (an unlimited amount) can be withdrawn that is considered necessary by the Minister of Finance until the expiry of a period of three months commencing with the date in which the National Assembly first meets after the dissolution.”
This is my last letter on this specific matter. I have a legal opinion; Mr Goolsarran may wish to avail himself of similar legal advice. I am also sending out a plea to any of our legal eagles to bring clarity and definitiveness to this subject.
Yours faithfully,
Winston Jordan
Former Minister of Finance
