Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang's decision prevails until a higher legal authority makes makes changes or a different final decision.

Resorting to the courts will not solve Budget issue – Nagamootoo

Alliance for Change (AFC) Member of Parliament and Vice Chairman Moses Nagamootoo says the legal avenue which Government has  signaled it might pursue with respect to the non approvals made by the combined Opposition over the 2014 Budget, will not solve their concerns. According to Nagamootoo the Government always has a legal avenue. “We can’t prevent them from going to court if they feel that way. We understood the interpretation that was given by the Chief Justice in what is called the Budget Cut Case; there is always an avenue for the Government to go that way rather than seeking a political solution.”

AFC Vice Chairman Moses Nagamootoo

He outlined that Government could argue that the non approval of the entire programme was contrary to  Chief Justice Ian Chang’s ruling which he asserted “is their interpretation.” However, according to the AFC Vice Chairman, resorting “to the court is not going to solve what is clearly a matter that ought to find a political solution.” Nagamootoo further outlined that he doesn’t “think the Chief Justice could tell them that we could vote for a Specialty Hospital or the Amaila Falls, the Chief Justice cannot tell the Parliament what to do” and asserted, “that is the dilemma…. the Executive is seeking the intervention of the Judiciary in an area that concerns the autonomy of the Legislature.” The National Assembly according to Nagamootoo “clearly has responsibility to protect the public purse and we believe that’s what has happened. On this occasion the Opposition did not cut, the Opposition did not amend; it was the Minister of Finance who, having seen the intention of the Opposition in the Committee of Supply to disapprove certain allocations in actual sense proposed to the Government to consider altering the figures.” He continued that the Finance Minister as representative of the Executive who reported to the National Assembly what happened in the Committee of Supply in reporting to the Assembly “presented a figure to the National Assembly that the Estimates be approved with amendments …it means that at that point in time it was the Minister of Finance who proposed the amendments.” Nagamootoo posited further that the AFC didn’t cut anything; the Committee of Supply indicated its disapproval of certain aspects and it was available to the Minister of Finance to say whether or not Government would wish to amend. “So it was the Minister of Finance representing the President who actually proposed the amendments to the Estimates and the National Assembly having approved the estimates as amended; the Finance Minister then brought the Appropriation Bill to have the sum appropriated from the Consolidated Fund in that amount as he amended it” said Nagamootoo. He explained that it was the entire National Assembly that voted on a motion by the Minister of Finance. “So it was the Minister of Finance who moved the motion that the Estimates be approved as amended meaning he acted on behalf of the Executive to amend the Estimates after the Committee of Supply which is a Committee of the House, it does not have more power than the House.” According to Nagamootoo, that’s why the Speaker of the National Assembly has repeatedly said “after a vote is taken in the Committee of Supply by non-approving it, it is actually making a proposal for amendment not actually amending.” He said the Government will have to decide whether it will put the estimates as submitted, in which case it would then have been available for the AFC to vote on the entire Estimate either in favour or vote against. “The Minister of Finance did not put the Estimates as tabled so it was by the Ministers own hand that the Estimates was altered so if they want to go to the court for an interpretation of what the Minister of Finance did, they can do that.” Nagamootoo asserted that he doesn’t “believe that the Minister of Finance is reposed with the final wisdom… he has acted and he may wish to now go and ask the court to interpret whether his actions was contrary to the constitution…I don’t know if it makes any sense having acted to now go and ask the umpire to decide whether he was leg before wicket.”

Court decisions always take precedence over political arrangements.

Tell that to Sooba and Ramotar.

Ram and McRae says the budget seems to contain only a shopping list for Expenditure while offering nothing on employment creation and the critical issues of corruption and better public sector financial management.

“Indeed, there is growing evidence that the country’s financial management is under serious threat, despite regular warnings. Despite the usual grandiloquence there is no real evidence of a central theme or the direction in which the Government proposes to take the country”, the chartered accounting firm said in its conclusion.

It charged that the budget placed very little attention on job creation and none on the National Insurance Scheme (NIS), which it says is still reeling from the loss of monies in the CLICO collapse.

“Dr. Ashni Singh is not only the Minister responsible for the NIS but was also the Minister responsible for CLICO’s oversight when it collapsed. It is all the more troubling that there is such little interest in what is an equally badly executed liquidation”, Ram and McRae said.

Noting that little was said about the Amaila Falls Hydropower Project and how the need for low-cost energy will be met, the accounting firm said that concerns that there may be moves to restore the project cannot be discounted even as the Government announced a study into the feasibility of hydropower from Mazaruni.

“Indeed Ram & McRae finds it hard to understand the $16,000 million allocated for equity contribution to the Amaila Falls Hydropower Project. We believe that item alone makes this Budget incapable of approval, or in common parlance, dead on arrival”, the budget review said.

Ram and McRae contended that Singh’s presentation was  a budget driven by subsidies and handouts with the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) and Guyana Power and Light, Inc. (GPL) continuing as major beneficiaries even though the Government is resisting a review of their operations. The accounting firm says it  seems irresponsible for GuySuCo to be provided further budgetary support until it complies with the law relating to the presentation of annual accounts and reports.

Ram and McRae also reviewed the controversial decisions by the Court in  the “Budget Cuts Case”.

“We believe that the court fell into error and therefore welcome the decision by the Speaker to appeal the decision of the one-man constitutional court. The National Assembly now proceeds to have the Estimates examined by the Committee of Supply which the court stripped of any real purpose and function, prompting one seasoned commentator to describe the process as “high farce””, the budget review said.

It added that the National Assembly has been stymied in its work by the Executive and the President who “appears to treat the opposition as an obstacle rather than a partner in progress”.

The review said if there is no progress on settling the impasse over the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism amendments, all the projects by the Minister of Finance could be placed in jeopardy. “We therefore join in appealing to everyone to put Guyana first”, the review said.

“Ram & McRae predicts that the Government will have a difficult time to persuade the parliamentary opposition to support certain budgetary allocations for projects and initiatives that appear to have received inadequate planning; or to allow the spending on NCN from which so much of the country is shut out; or to finance some of the government’s pet projects.

“There is a belief that the PPP/C is unwilling to function without a clear majority which would allow it to have its unhindered way in the Assembly. Cynics might even suggest that the 2014 Budget was designed to invite a rejection of the Budget and justify returning to the polls and forestalling long delayed and much feared local government elections”, Ram and McRae asserted.

http://www.stabroeknews.com/20...pointment-ram-mcrae/

The well learned Chief Justice interpretation of the constitution stands, its above any internal standing orders in the Parliament, the Constitution is Supreme.

Teach dat Boy DG, teach dat Boy.

Well controlled PPP pocket Judge. Look carefully you will see the chains running down his trousers from his PPP collar stamped "PPP property"! The constitution is an agreement with the People and the way they want to be governed not the way t he PPP interprets they be governed. In a democracy, the legislature is not a rubber stamp and Finance Ministers are not owners of the budget. They are creators of the budget according to an administrative plan and their creation is  to be presented for consultation, discussion and compromise in the Assembly so a fair one can be on the president's desk

The Constitution is the Supreme law of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, its above any internal standing orders in the parliament.

The Constitution is the supreme law only if the People agree. Does Tunisia to Libya mean anything to your? You cannot make them slaves to a law that oppresses them. The PPP wants dictatorial power but we did that and did not like it. We do not like them either. Call the elections.

It is not the job of the chief justice to interpret the Constitution. The Constitution is not open to interpretation either. The Constitution is perfectly clear so that even the dumbest Guyanese understands it.