Going after Dr Ashni Singh is a political vendetta

Dear Editor,

Minister Khemraj Ramjattan is reported to have stated he is going after former Finance Minister Ashni Singh over the release of some Gy$4.5 billion that was used for various Government projects.

The Minister transferred the State funds for public use in his capacity as a Minister without parliamentary approval. In New York, my AFC friends told me that their party’s leadership promised them that criminal charges will be filed against Dr Singh for spending money without parliamentary approval.

In fact, right after the APNU/AFC was sworn in last May, AFC spokespersons in NY stated they intended to criminally prosecute Dr Singh for spending money not approved by Parliament. That is a political vendetta.

Minister Ramjattan, as a lawyer, and AFC (as well as APNU) political activists ought to know that a Minister carrying out his role in an official capacity (even without approval) cannot be held criminally culpable for what are considered “political acts” especially when such actions were approved by the Court and when they were also directed by the Minister’s boss, the President, and the Cabinet to which the Minister officially reports.

Minister Ramjattan and activists of the ruling coalition appear not to understand parliamentary rules of governance as they are confusing criminal behaviour and parliamentary procedural actions.

Violating parliamentary protocols is not necessarily a criminal act.

As a post-graduate student of (comparative and international) politics, I can confidently state without fear of contradiction that a government or a minister cannot and should not spend money not approved by Parliament unless under extreme (life and death) emergency conditions (called doctrine of necessity in political science) and even so, there is a limited period of time of unapproved budgeting.

Parliamentary convention calls for sanctions (with rare exception) of a government or minister that violates such a rule. A parliamentary apology or act of contrition can result in the body not applying sanction which can take the form of a no-confidence motion (dismissal of the Minister or the Government) or a temporary suspension (for a period of up to the rest of the sitting).Egregious violations can lead to expulsion from the House.

Dr Singh’s action falls under “unappropriated expenditure” of funds and is a violation of parliamentary ethics or rules. But the High Court, under Justice Ian Chang’s ruling, forbade punishment, authorising the expenditure. Dr Singh claimed he acted (transferring the funds) based on his interpretation of Justice Chang’s ruling: Chang authorised the expenditure. There is no doubt that Dr Singh violated parliamentary rules. However, the Minister cannot be brought on criminal charges for violating the parliamentary rule because he claims the Court instructed him to do so. To not do so would have been in contempt of court.

My AFC friends feel if nothing else, Dr Singh should be charged for arrogantly spending State money. Arrogance is not a criminal act. If it were so, then more than half of Guyana, indeed almost all the politicians, including almost all AFC, APNU and PPP politicians, would be in jail. I never experienced arrogance from Dr Singh in my several encounters with him in Guyana and in the Diaspora. He displayed utmost respect for me, my polling and my public-spirited work on behalf of Guyana and the Diaspora.

As best as I understand parliamentary rules and conventions, Dr Singh was not in contravention of parliamentary rules as per the court ruling (I disagree with the court ruling). Former Speaker Ralph Ramkarran may wish to give his views on the matter. If a minister misuses public funds for private gain, then criminal charges can be filed against him and such acts have occurred in the Commonwealth.

On this point, I wish to note that the indefatigable anti-corruption crusader Ramesh Maharaj, the former Attorney General of Trinidad, is of the view that a public official can be criminally prosecuted if he misspends public money. But in Dr Singh’s case, he did not misuse State’s funds. Dr Singh transferred money from one account into another without parliamentary approval, but with authorisation from the Court, the President and the Cabinet.

Thus, Dr Singh feels (and I agree) he did not violate parliamentary rules. He could not be sanctioned by Parliament and in fact, the Parliament tried to sanction him, but subsequently backed down. At any rate, the Singh matter has passed its political shelf life: sanctioning takes place within the life of the sitting of the body (not after its term has expired).

If Dr Singh or any other politician violated criminal statues, then they should be prosecuted and several of them have done so since June, including spying on Indian political activists and those not supportive of the Government.

AFC and APNU activists must not mix up political and criminal acts. Dr Singh’s action was political, not criminal. Seeking political revenge, as AFC-APNU politicians have signalled by their actions, under the guise of criminal violations, is unacceptable. It is an abuse of process, setting a bad precedent that could turn back to hurt APNU-AFC politicians.

Ramjattan needs to differentiate his roles of a lawyer and a politician (Minister) and he ought to know that the court will not support his planned action or advocacy of criminal action against a Minister who acted as per the instruction of the Court and his President, as well as the Cabinet. Going after Dr Singh is a political vendetta.

Yours truly,

Vishnu Bisram