A new parliamentary sub-committee has been set up to review amendments made to the 2014 National Budget presented by Finance Minister, Dr Ashni Singh after House Speaker Raphael Trotman maintained his position that the National Assembly has the ability to axe the budget despite the High Court’s ruling.
Presiding over the National Assembly on Wednesday, Trotman proposed eight recommendations for the consideration of the Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure for Financial Year 2014, amid controversies surrounding the January 29 ruling by the Acting Chief Justice, Ian Chan on budget cuts.
In accordance with Standing Orders 72-75, the National Assembly was dissolved into the Committee of Supply to consider the estimates. However, a sub-committee comprising seven members was constituted with four members from the Opposition and three from the ruling People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), with the Speaker as the chairman. The committee has been established to examine proposals for amendments with the aim of arriving at consensus when necessary during the consideration of estimates.
Earlier this year, the Acting Chief Justice ruled that the National Assembly’s move to cut the 2012 National Budget was unconstitutional, explaining that it does not have the power to cut the national estimates. The CJ ruled also that the Opposition can only approve or disapprove the budget in its entirety or sections within. But the Speaker told the House on Wednesday that “despite the views and opinions of the High Court, the decision does not, and indeed cannot, do harm to the National Assembly’s procedures for treating with the Estimates of Expenditure.”
National Assembly rules
In justifying his position, Trotman pointed to Article 165(1) of the Constitution, which states “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the National Assembly may regulate its own procedure and may make rules for that purpose”.
According to him, no court can infringe on the rights of the National Assembly, stressing that this right has been universally recognised and upheld even in the High Court of Guyana in the 1963 case of Jagan et al v Gajraj. “For this reason, I utterly reject the notion that the National Assembly can act unlawfully in the exercise of its functions,” Trotman said.
Because of its intrinsic right, the House has promulgated its own rules and procedures commonly called “Standing Orders”. Trotman noted that these standing orders control the practices and procedures, including the review and approval of the Estimates of Expenditure.
He made it clear that the National Assembly relies on Standing Orders 75 and 76 to guide the review and approval process of the estimates of expenditure, noting that these have been identified as legal instruments since the birth of the nation.
While it is not difficult to understand the reason behind Chang’s ruling, the Speaker argued that there were a number of points of departure with his reasoning. “The principal disagreement with the Honourable Chief Justice’s observations is in the strong belief that it is for the National Assembly and the National Assembly alone to determine how it will handle any matter it is seized of.”
