Dear Editor,
I am reluctantly intervening in the exchanges of letters over the past few days between Dr. Anand Goolsarran, former Auditor General, and Mr. Winston Jordan, former Minister of Finance. It began with the Stabroek News Column Accountability Watch of May 9 in which Dr. Goolsarran claimed that withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund for the period 1 May 2020 to 31 August 2020 lacked constitutional and statutory authority. Dr. Goolsarran continued in that vein in his column of the following week noting that Article 220 of the Constitution allows the Minister to authorise withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund for the first four months but that “There is no provision for access to the Fund beyond this period”. He added that “all withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund to meet expenditure during the period May-August 2020 would have been devoid of constitutional/legislative authority.”
By way of a letter dated 17 May, 2022, Mr. Jordan expressed surprise that Dr. Goolsarran’s assertion overlooked Article 219 (3) of the Constitution which provides as follows:
“Where at any time Parliament has been dissolved before any provision or any sufficient provision is made …. for the carrying on of the Government of Guyana, the Minister responsible for finance may authorise the withdrawal of such sums from the Consolidated Fund as he or she may consider necessary for the purpose of meeting expenditure on the public services until the expiry of a period of three months commencing with the date on which the National Assembly first meets after dissolution…”
Dr. Goolsarran promptly responded, maintaining his position, eliciting a rebuttal from Mr. Jordan who claims to have had a written legal opinion on the matter. On the grounds of commonsense alone, I have to agree with Mr. Jordan on this one.
If what Dr. Goolsarran insists on is the correct position, any release of money post April 30 to keep the hospitals, schools and government offices open, to pay public servants, police and the army, maintain overseas missions, etc., would be unlawful. The country would have been shut down and chaos prevailed. Fortunately, the framers of the Constitution anticipated the possibility of a dissolved Parliament without an Appropriation Act and by Article 219 (3) authorises the Minister of Finance to access funds for up to three months after the resumption of the National Assembly, this period being considered sufficient to allow the new Government to settle in and present its Budget to the National Assembly.
In closing, I would like to acknowledge the wisdom and foresight of the framers of the Constitution not only in relation to spending in this gap period but for providing in the same Article 219 (3) that a statement of the expenditure so authorised must be laid in the National Assembly for approval and subsequent inclusion in the next Appropriation Bill.
I extend respect to both gentlemen.
Yours faithfully,
Christopher Ram
