In the National Assembly, the opposition yesterday voted against an allocation of $136 million for contracted employees at the Office of the President, sparking a debate over the interpretation of a ruling by the Chief Justice some months ago directing the Minister of Finance to Article 219 of the Constitution with regard to inadequate funding for agencies.
And as the Opposition continued its actions against Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee, no allocation under the Ministry of Home Affairs save for a tranche of $293 million for the IDB-funded Citizens Security Programme was approved.
Greenidge questioned whether the allocation for the Office of the President means an additional number of employees. “Why are the numbers varying from what has been budgeted?” asked Greenidge of APNU. “Would the Minister of Finance note our ongoing concern over the inadequacy of information of all the papers before us?” he asked.
To Greenidge’s queries, Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh said that Govern-ment continues to be available to engage with the Opposition with a view to providing information on any of the items on the financial papers. However, Greennidge upbraided the Minister, saying that the issue is not about being available to have a gaff or a drink and to speak about the allocations but the requirement in the law for proper explanations to be given for the monies sought.
The Minister said too that the amount represents in part the amounts that would have been cut from the budget by the Opposition earlier in the year.
He said too that the figure represented new staffing in the form of a household worker, a driver, a senior research assistant, a divisional head, a special assistant and a finance officer.
Minister Singh contended that the ruling by the Chief Justice allowed for the Government to take action where there was an inadequacy. However the Opposition argued that this ruling applied to the allocation that had been chopped from the Ethnic Relations Commission only.
Said Greenidge, “Notwithstanding the ruling of the House, the Minister still found money and the explanation is that the court has sanctioned it. Nowhere can the court authorise the Minister to spend money. For the Minister to say this is completely wrong.” Greenidge demanded that the Minister cite the particular phrasing of the Chief Justice’s ruling which allows him to spend money which had been previously cut.
Making an intervention in aid of the Finance Minister, Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General Anil Nandlall said that the Chief Justice in his ruling identified provisions in the Constitution which are available to the Minister of Finance and which allows him to access money from the Consolidated Fund and the Contingencies Fund if there is not a sufficient allocation made to an agency. “All the Chief Justice did was point the Minister to the provisions,” said Nandlall.
MP Basil Williams said that the Chief Justice cannot tell the Minister to go ahead and “tek” money from the Treasury. But to this Nandlall responded saying that the Chief Justice drew attention to Article 218 (3) of the Constitution.
Greenidge told Nandlall that the decision by the Chief Justice was but a provisional one.
On July 18, Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang ordered that Finance Minister Dr Singh be allowed to withdraw monies from the Consolidated Fund, as is necessary, for the functioning of the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC).
Justice Chang in his ruling found that the National Assembly’s reduction of the ERC’s budget to $1 was unconstitutional as it did not perform its constitutional duty under Article 222 A (a) of the Constitution.
“In order to enable that constitutional entity and its secretariat to perform its constitutional functions, the court orders the Ministry of Finance to allow all expenditures necessary from time to time for the maintenance of that entity and for the performance of it constitutional function to be charged directly upon the Consolidated Fund (as mandated by the Constitution) until the National Assembly determines a lump sum by way of subvention to meet such expenditures in accordance with Article 222 A(a),” Justice Chang said in his ruling.
Pointing to the succeeding Article 219 subsection 2, Alliance For Change Khemraj Ramjattan said that there has been a misreading of the decision and a misleading of the House.
Following the arguments and counter arguments between members of the Government and Opposition, Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman said that at the end of the day the matter has come back to the National Assembly, even though the money has been spent.
After the Speaker in his capacity of Chair of the Committee of Supply put the question to the Committee to vote on, the Office of the President allocation was voted against and not carried.
