Govt mulls fresh legal challenge over budget cuts

By Michael Younge –

Government has not ruled out instituting fresh legal proceedings against a decision taken by House Speaker Raphael Trotman to uphold a motion tabled by the opposition to axe the 2013 national budget, as it vehemently protested what it called a misinterpretation of the country’s Constitution, which has led to uncertainty and parliamentary conflict between the executive and the legislature.
The court has already made a temporary ruling on the issue, “but that, of course, does not mean that I cannot bring challenge afresh. The option will have to be discussed and decided upon collectively by the Cabinet, but both positions remain open, including the option to file fresh proceedings because this is a new ruling and this has taken the matter even further,” Attorney General Anil Nandlall stated while addressing a pool of senior journalists in one of the Committee Rooms of the National Assembly.

Constitution
He said the government was extremely surprised by the ruling handed down by Trotman, adding that it was clear from his utterances that there was widespread misinterpretation of the Constitution, as far as determining the functions of the National Assembly were concerned, with specific reference to the national budgets presented by the executive government.
“I am fortified in my belief that there is a serious conceptual difficulty in understanding the constitutionally defined role of the National Assembly, having regard to its functions and responsibilities,” he said, arguing carefully that the court had already given a preliminary ruling on the matter which could not lose “efficacy” because it is not final.
He strongly contended that the judiciary is the final arbitrator on what the Constitution says and means.
“So, you have now a situation of complete and utter , because you have the Parliament saying it has the power to cut under the Constitution and the court, which is the guardian of that constitution, saying that the Parliament doesn’t have any such power,” he reported.
High Court
As a matter of fact, Nandlall who is also the legal affairs minister, informed journalists that the Guyana government has since written acting Chief Justice Ian Chang requesting that proceedings resume at the level of the High Court to arrive at a final ruling on the matters contained in the attorney general’s ex-parte application following, the 2012 budget cuts by the opposition.
“I cannot conceive how the chief justice can depart from the pronouncements he has made in his preliminary ruling…so there is a strong likelihood that we will have pronouncements now from the court finally that will be in collision with the pronouncements made by the Speaker.”
Great difficulty
The attorney general had admitted that since the ruling, he has found himself in great difficulty with respect to advising the government which one of these pronouncements it should follow, as he provided arguments which in essence stated that since the executive, the people of Guyana and even the courts are subject to judicial review, the Parliament was too.
“We have to fashion a way forward in terms of reconciling” the issues before the country, Nandlall said, explaining the precipice on which government was now precariously perched.
He has also admitted that the chief justice has not yet formally responded to his letter, but argued that he could not dictate the speed or urgency with which the judiciary deals with matters before it. All he could do is bring attention to the urgency of the issue at hand, Nandlall maintained, noting that all is equal before the law and therefore, the Parliament is no different from the ordinary citizen of the country.
Govt needs a budget
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Samuel Hinds admitted that government had expected a different ruling from the Speaker following the very strong presentations of its finance and legal affairs ministers during Monday’s debate on the admissibility of the motion to axe the estimates.
“But we want to get on with the business of our country. We want to have a budget in place for 2013, and we are proceeding with the estimates,” the prime minister said, apparently as an interim measure.
Hinds maintained that the ruling party had no intention of giving hope or shifting its stance on Budget 2013, but was willing still, even at the 11th hour to work towards advancing the needs of the people of Guyana.
“Our budget came at the end of a point in our continuous reflection of where Guyana is and what are the next steps our country requires to keep on growing… and every allocation in our budget is based on considered judgement as to what is required to keep our country growing and developing,” Prime Minister Hinds said.
He insisted that there was a need for a budget by monthend, telling journalists that “we have to weigh up different things… whilst other steps are being contemplated”.
Anti-development budget stance
Hinds’ position was supported by a very articulate Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh, who offered his perspectives on the ruling while expressing hope that good sense will prevail. Dr Singh advanced the position that Parliament in Guyana is at an extreme juncture, telling reporters that the ruling came as a surprise given his belief that there was little merit emanating from the articles and other premises put forward by the combined opposition, to persuade Guyana that it can cut Budget 2013.
Attacks could hurt development projects
Dr Singh’s position was illustrated when Public Works Minister Robeson Benn disclosed the projects for which the Alliance For Change recommended significant amendments.
Minister Benn related cuts were proposed to the staffing of several government agencies, including the Office of the President and even his own ministry, despite government’s insistence that the budget is a carefully crafted one.
“It’s our budget and we anticipate that we should live or die by our budget, or then would have to go to back the electorate which is the normal thing,” the minister advanced, as he disagreed with the opposition’s move to reduce several estimates.
Benn has also taken issue with what he deemed to be a move to undermine his ministry’s technical and physical competence, as he informed that the AFC wanted to axe Gy$356 million, which represents 85 per cent of the monies allocated and required to run the engineering centre  for projects of the country in terms of civil works, roads, and bridges.