Ruling
In 2012, during the consideration of the Estimates accompanying the 2012 Budget, the Committee of Supply, by way of a simple majority vote, amended the Estimates presented by the Minister of Finance by removing a total of $20.9bln from within various heads of the Budget. The Minister of Finance in proposing the Appropriation Bill – Bill No. 3 of 2012, to be taken through its three (3) stages, reported that the Assembly had approved the Bill, as amended. After much angst, confusion and distress, the 2012 Budget of the Government was approved with amendments. It was unanimously accepted that the National Assembly had the power to amend the Estimates in 2012 as even the Minister of Finance, the Hon. Dr. Ashni K. Singh, M.P., stated on 17th April, 2012:
“Over the next six days we will be considering the National Estimates and it is the legitimate right of the Opposition to ask any questions it wishes, within the Standing orders, in relation to those numbers. It is, indeed, the legitimate right of the Opposition to propose any change, within the boundaries of the Standing Orders, to any of those numbers.
Subsequently, on June 4, 2012, the Hon. Anil Nandlall, M.P., Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, instituted Civil Proceedings No. 216-W of 2012, Demerara, a Generally Indorsed Writ, to challenge the validity of the amendments passed by the National Assembly. On July 18, 2012, the learned Chief Justice, the Hon. Ian N. Chang, C.C.H, S.C., (hereinafter Chief Justice) gave a “preliminary” Ruling that emanated from an Ex-Parte application filed by the Hon. Attorney-General asking for the Hon. Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni K. Singh, M.P., (third-named Defendant) to “be at liberty to make advances/withdrawals from the Contingencies Fund pursuant to Article 220 of the Constitution for the purpose of restoring the funds to the Agencies...as originally budgeted in the Estimates of the Revenues and Expenditures of Guyana for the year 2012”. As far as could be ascertained, since the date of the provisional ruling, no further steps have been taken, and the Court is yet to make a final ruling on this very critical matter.
On Friday, April 12, 2013, as per the procedure laid out in the Standing Orders, and as was the case in 2012, Notice of Motion for amendments was received in proper form from the Hon. Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan, M.P.
On Monday, 15 April, 2013, in view of the Point of Order, formally raised by the Hon. Attorney General, to the Motion in the name of Mr. Ramjattan, M.P., being properly on the Notice Paper for consideration, and the Speaker being the authority to decide on the due regularity of Motions (See Standing Orders 26 and 27), I invited arguments for, and against, the Motion being introduced.
Previous Rulings Nos. 2 and 5 of 2012 given on the 15th March, 2012 and 13th June, 2012, respectively, have established that the in strict compliance with the doctrine of the separation of powers, only the Executive, has the right, to formulate the Budget, and correspondingly, the National Assembly has the right to scrutinise, approve, disapprove, or amend, by reducing only, the Government’s Estimates of Expenditure. In a manner of speaking therefore, this Ruling is an expansion and continuation of Nos. 2 and 5 of 2012.
For the sake of clarity, I have identified the essence of the arguments of the two sides of the House to be:
Government’s Arguments
• The word “approved” must be given its literal meaning and interpretation and can never mean “amend”.
• The power to amend would have been explicitly granted to the National Assembly if this is what the framers of the Constitution intended. The words would have been set out as in Article 113 (2) of Constitution of India.
• The Guyana situation of the National Assembly amending Estimates was never contemplated given the unique political system that includes features of a hybrid Westminster/Presidential system, and proportional representation. Further, the constitution reform process of 1998 – 2001 neglected to address this anomaly.
• The Constitution of Guyana is supreme and all institutions of State, including the National Assembly, are subject to it.
• The High Court as the only institution that can interpret and make binding declarations on the Constitution has, through the Hon. Chief Justice, made a ruling that must be followed by the National Assembly.
• Article 171 (2), (a) and (b) have no applicability to the consideration of proposed estimates, but rather, relate only to existing charges on the Consolidated Fund.
Opposition’s Arguments
• The power to “approve” must include the power to “amend”
• The majority of the National Assembly is empowered to make changes to the Estimates.
• The Hon. Chief Justice’s “ruling” was restricted to one matter: whether the Minister of Finance could make advances and withdrawals from the Contingency and Consolidated Funds.
• The High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the National Assembly in the performance of its functions. The High Court’s constitutional duty and responsibility commence after the National Assembly has acted.
• The ruling of the High Court did not strike down the power of the Parliament of Guyana to pass Appropriation Act No. 3 of 2012.
• The National Assembly has the power to amend the Estimates in the Committee of Supply stage and also to amend the Appropriation Bill when it is being considered.
Size: 79.51 KB
