– Ramjattan says he will appeal
Nearly two years after government moved to the courts challenging the opposition cuts to the National Budget, acting Chief Justice Ian Chang on Wednesday delivered a final ruling, declaring that the National Assembly has no right to cut the national estimates presented by the finance minister and can only approve or disapprove the budget in its entirety or sections within.
“The power of the National Assembly to approve (or not to approve) the minister’s estimates simply means that the assembly is conferred with a “gate-keeping” function by the Constitution and does not imply or involve a power to amend or to adjust the estimates presented by the executive minster,” ruled Chang.
He stated that if the opposition were to cut the budget then it would not be a final estimate from the minister but “estimates as fixed and determined by the assembly”.
In his 21-page ruling, he further explained that there would be no room for the finance minister to essay any amendments to the estimates to meet the concerns expressed during the debates or in the Committee of Supply.
“It is one thing to say that the assembly or the Committee of Supply can propose amendments to the estimates. It is quite another thing to say that the assembly can itself effect those amendments to the estimates. If the assembly itself were to effect amendments to the estimates, that would be an end to the matter and the issue of the Cabinet accepting or rejecting those amendments would not and cannot arise,” the written ruling stated.
Standing orders
Addressing another argument that was proffered by Speaker Raphael Trotman regarding standing orders empowering the House with the power to cut the budget, the acting chief justice pointed out that standing orders are not laws but guides to the business of the House.
He noted that Section Nine of the Constitution, and not Article Nine of the Constitution (a schedule to the said act), did not convert pre-existing standing orders from procedural rules of self-regulation into procedural rules of law.
“The fact that any standing order can be repealed or amended by the assembly itself without the need for any repealing or amending legislative provision is a clear indication that standing orders are not written law.”
In his ruling, Justice Chang noted that over the past year, the question of whether the National Assembly possessed the power to cut the budget, was not dealt with hence the cuts were repeated last year.
“In the circumstances, the court sees it fit to declare that the National Assembly, through the Committee of Supply, has acted unconstitutionally in purporting to reduce or cut the estimates of expenditure of the minister of finance for the financial year 2012.
The court sees it fit to further declare that the power of the National Assembly is limited to giving or withholding its approval for the minister’s estimates when those estimates are laid before the assembly for its approval under Article 218 of the Constitution.”
After the decision was handed down, Attorney General Anil Nandlall told reporters that he was happy with the judge’s ruling since it concurs with the position taken by government from the onset.
Nandlall said he hoped this judgment will guide future treatments of budgets so that the same unfortunate and unconstitutional position will not reoccur.
Scissors
“So those who feel they have a scissors, well, the scissors have been declared an unconstitutional instrument when it comes to cutting the budgets and I am personally happy, because as you know, I had been severely criticised when I first filed these proceedings,” he stated.
Khemraj Ramjattan, who represented Speaker Trotman, expressed his dissatisfaction with the decision. He said they will be appealing the decision as he believes that the chief justice erred, since Guyana has a Westminster-type parliament.
“We can amend budget allocations, we can amend estimates and that is why in the Committee of Supply we do what we do. Each line item has to be approved and the yes vote and the no vote have to be made.
“So what we were doing there merely, if we were to take the logical conclusion, would mean that we are simply being a rubber stamp of the executive branch and so there is no check and balance… we are going to settle it right up to the highest court because it is a matter that must be settled once and for all,” he stated.
In signalling his disagreement on the status of the standing orders, Ramjattan said they clearly state that the National Assembly has the power to reduce the budget.
In April 2012, the combined parliamentary opposition used its one-seat majority to slash Gy$21.9 billion from the proposed Gy$192.8 billion national budget. The government subsequently took to the court to block the National Assembly from cutting the budget.
In a preliminary ruling, Justice Chang said the opposition can only approve or disapprove of the budget in its entirety, and not make any changes; however, the opposition argued that the ruling is not binding or final and shaved off more than Gy$31.4 billion of the Gy$208.8 billion 2013 budget.
The chaos deepened when the Speaker also proclaimed that the court had no oversight responsibility or powers over the legislature.
