Latest update April 25th, 2024 12:59 AM
Jun 06, 2012 News
The government, through Cabinet Secretary Dr. Roger Luncheon, has moved to the High Court by way of an ex-parte motion, which seeks to state that the National Assembly has no power to cut the annual budget. It is seeking an order that the $20.9B in cuts be set aside.
Opposition Leader David Granger, Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman and Dr. Ashni Singh are commanded within ten days to appear before Chief Justice. Dr. Luncheon in his affidavit in support of the motion stated that it is the exclusive responsibility of the Executive to prepare and lay before the National Assembly the Annual Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure for each financial year.
He said that no power resides in the National Assembly, either in the Committee of Supply, or at all, to move an amendment to reduce any aspect of the Annual Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure laid by the Minister of Finance, and certainly, the National Assembly has no power whatsoever, in proposing a new or different sum, or any sum at all.
According to Dr. Luncheon the two motions moved by Mr. Ramjattan and Mr. Greenidge, which sought to “reduce the Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure laid by the Honourable Minister of Finance, and the proposals of different sums instead, amounted not only to an arrogation of powers which the Constitution does not confer upon them, but was also a usurpation of a function which the Constitution exclusively resides in the Executive, thereby, abrogating the doctrine of separation of powers.”
Dr. Luncheon said that in respect of the affected agencies, the National Assembly, and not the Executive, presented the Annual Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure for the year 2012, a situation not provided for, nor contemplated by the Constitution in any form or fashion.
He went on to note that indeed, and admittedly, the National Assembly has an additional financial responsibility to approve expenditure as provided for in Article 120, but the same relates and is confined to expenditure connected with future offices to be constituted by the President.
The Cabinet Secretary said that none of the offices and entities which formed the subject of these proceedings are new offices; they are all existing offices; indeed, the express confinement of the power of approval to future offices fortifies the contention that no power is vested in the National Assembly by the Constitution to affect funding to existing offices, save and except, a power of complete disapproval as contemplated by Article 218.
Therefore, all reductions of the Annual Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure purportedly affected by the Committee of Supply of the National Assembly were ultra vires the Constitution and the jurisdiction and authority of the National Assembly.
Perhaps, the most pellucid exemplification of unconstitutional nature and the unlawful magnitude of the National Assembly’s actions in respect of the reduction of the said Annual Estimates, is the Ethnic Relations Commission, a body which is not only established by the Constitution itself, but one whose financial autonomy the Constitution protects by, inter alia, making its expenditure financeable as a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund.
Dr. Luncheon is seeking the third-named defendant, Dr. Ashni Singh, to be at liberty to make advances/ withdrawals from the Contingencies Fund, pursuant to Article 220 of the Constitution, for the purpose of restoring the funds to the Agencies listed, as originally budgeted in the Estimates of the Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana for the year 2012.
He said that unless the “Orders sought herein are granted, the offices and entities affected would be unable to, or severely and irreversibly prevented from, discharging their functions in the manner provided for and contemplated by the Constitution, and/or legislation, resulting not only in constitutional chaos, but the Executive’s inability to govern and administer the affairs of this nation in accordance with the provisions of and the manner contemplated by the Constitution”.
More so, Dr. Luncheon said that the balance of convenience, justice and national interest weighs heavily in favour of the grant of the Orders sought. He said that he was advised by the Attorney General and verily believes that, there is no harm, damage or injustice which will accrue if the Order sought herein is granted, and on the other hand, if they are refused, constitutional chaos, which jeopardizes the nation’s interest, is a likely consequence.
The matter is returnable tomorrow before Chief Justice Ian Chang.
Jagdeo giving Exxon 102 cent to collect 2 cent.
Apr 25, 2024
By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – The French Diplomatic Office in Guyana, in collaboration with the Guyana Olympic Association and UNICEF, hosted an exhibition on Tuesday evening at the...Kaieteur News – Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, the General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party, persists in offering... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]