Parliament last night carried an opposition motion resolving to remove the Judiciary from under the ambit of a budget agency but a bill needs to be tabled in order to amend the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act (FMAA) to make this possible.
The motion, which was taken to the National Assembly by Carl Greenidge of the APNU, seeks to remove the Judiciary from the schedule of agencies that are budget agencies so that it could draw its financing directly from the Consolidated Fund.
As in so many instances of late, the Opposition using its majority in the House was able to see to the carrying of the motion, despite vociferous opposition and resistance by the Government benches.
Greenidge tabled a number of motions, among them one seeking to repeal the President’s pension and other benefits law, change the way some constitutional bodies function and compelling NICIL to put its monies into the Consolidated Fund. Government on Wednesday hosted a press conference to speak about the Opposition motions and broadcast it repeatedly on NCN Channel 11.
In his motion, Greenidge argued that under Article 122A of the Constitution, all Courts and all persons presiding over courts shall exercise their function independently of the control and direction of any other person or authority and shall be free and independent from political, executive and any other form of direction and control.
He said also that in accordance with said Article 122A of the Constitution “all courts shall be administratively autonomous and shall be funded by a direct charge upon the Consolidated Fund and such courts shall operate in accordance with the principles of sound financial and administrative management.”
Greenidge said that the fact that the Supreme Court of Guyana and all other Courts are being treated as a Budget Agency “seriously” calls into question the independence and autonomy of the Courts,
The motion then resolved that the National Assembly take steps to amend the Schedule to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 2003 “so as to remove the Supreme Court from the Schedule of Budget Agencies and restore it to its rightful place as an autonomous body drawing directly from the Consolidated Fund and that the changes should be reflected in the Annual Estimates to be submitted by the Minister of Finance for the approval of the National Assembly.”
In justifying the motion, Greenidge said that the separation of powers is the pillar of the rule of law and of democracies. He said that it is also important for the operation of an open economy, which has as a prerequisite the independence of the Judiciary. He pointed out that the Judiciary should not become a branch of the Executive.
Greenidge stated that the opting to make the Judiciary a budget agency under the 2003 FMAA is to subordinate it. He said that a direct charge to the Consolidated Fund is usually interpreted as a block vote, something he said was not peculiar to Guyana.
He said that with regard to the management of the money, whatever financial guidelines that the Government has will be employed. He pointed out that while the block vote was not perfect, it met the requirements of the Constitution.
Speaking to the motion, Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh said that the matter contained within the motion was among those matters being discussed between the President and the Opposition following the examination of the estimates. According to the Minister, the Opposition and the Government had agreed in those meetings that the matter would have been considered in greater detail in the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reform.
Singh asked whether Greenidge, by bringing the motion, was reneging on the agreement reached in those meetings.
Singh was convinced that the motion had an error and meant Article 222 A of the Constitution instead of Article 122 A and said the motion ignores Article 222 A which gives the National Assembly an oversight function with regard to the Judiciary. He stated that Greenidge cannot on the one hand say that Government’s guidelines for the financial management of the monies will be applied and then cut out that oversight role that the Parliament has, as ascribed by Article 222 A of the Constitution.
In his contribution to the motion, Attorney General Anil Nandlall said that the Opposition was engaging in political grandstanding. He said that there is not a single shred of evidence that the Judiciary was starved of funds. Nandlall said that the Opposition was casting aspersions on the integrity of the Judiciary by saying that it can be compromised because it is a budget agency.
Basil Williams of APNU said that by tabling the motion, the party is trying to maintain the purity of the Judiciary. Williams insisted that the basis for the motion was not Article 222 A as the finance minister was insisting, but in fact Article 122 A.
He said that the time has come for the Supreme Court to be removed from the schedule of the FMAA to provide for its independence. He pointed out that any law that was inconsistent with the Constitution as in the case with the FMAA must be voided. Speaking on the motion, Khemraj Ramjattan of the AFC said that the Constitution provides safeguards from the judiciary making open ended demands for funds.
At the end of the almost three hour debate, the Speaker stated that in the absence of a bill meant to amend the substantive Act – in this case the FMAA – the National Assembly could do little to carry out the resolve clause of the motion which was carried. The motion was carried by acclamation.
The Speaker’s point raises the question of the need for the opposition to begin presenting legislation to the National Assembly. It has however been stated that the Attorney General’s Chambers will not be providing drafting assistance to the opposition.
