Court vindicates govt’s Lotto Fund deposit

–deems opposition’s challenge misconceived

Justice Diana Insanally has dismissed legal proceedings filed by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) parliamentarian Desmond Trotman, which challenged the constitutionality and legality of the government’s deposit of proceeds from the lottery into a Developmental Fund, popularly referred to as the “Lotto Fund”.
The judge on December 28, 2012 ruled that the challenge was misconceived, and ordered the applicant, Desmond Trotman to pay to the respondent, the attorney general Gy$50,000 in costs.
Trotman was represented by Miles Fitzpatrick, SC and Christopher Ram. For several years now, opposition politicians and critics of the government, including Ram, a Chartered Accountant and Anand Goolsarran, a former Auditor General, have been heavily critical of the government on this issue of depositing money in the “Lotto Funds” as opposed to depositing same directly into the Consolidated Fund.
The government’s contention has always been that it is perfectly lawful and proper and constitutional to place those monies in a fund separately and apart from the Consolidated Fund.
APNU Parliamentarian Carl Greenidge had moved a motion in the House last year seeking to compel Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh to deposit these monies directly into the Consolidated Fund, contending that it was unlawful and unconstitutional to deposit it elsewhere.
During the debate in the National Assembly, the government argued that the motion was misconceived and that the provisions of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act, Article 216 of the Constitution, and the Lotteries Act permit those monies to be kept outside of the Consolidated Fund and in a Development Fund. The opposition however used their one-seat majority to pass their motion.

The court, in dismissing the matter, found that the deposit of the monies in the Development Fund of Guyana (Lotto Fund) is in accordance with Article 216 of the Constitution, the provisions of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act and the Lotteries Act, thereby vindicating the government’s position.
The administration hopes that this would put this matter to rest.
The government took the opportunity to encourage the opposition to take more of these issues with which they have difficulties to the court for resolution rather than using them in the press and elsewhere to perpetuate their self-induced perception of lack of transparency and accountability in government’s business, and to lend sustenance to their omnipresent zombie of corruption in all spheres of governmental activities.