Dear Editor,
On January 29 our Chief Justice (CJ) acting ruled that the majority in the National Assembly has no power to cut the budget estimates made by the government’s Finance Minister. It was a sad day for jurisprudence in Guyana.
The reaction was immediate with the Parliament Office questioning the CJ’s interpretation of the constitution, and the opposition saying the ruling would be challenged in the appeal court since it has the potential to cause a constitutional crisis in Guyana.
Mr Eusi Kwayana co-leader of the WPA was no less critical and in a letter to the Stabroek News published on February 1 labelled the ruling by CJ Chang as one which “leaves us to conclude that the Committee of Supply process is high farce.”
Pro-PPP elements have hailed the decision, notably Mr Sultan Mohamed, if he exists, who wrote a letter to the editor of the Stabroek News which was printed in its February 1 issue. His letter contains such drivel that I will not dwell on it.
I will however dwell on what Mr Kwayana has written since it is the correct interpretation in this matter according to legal advice I was given by very competent lawyers, although it does not go far enough.
Mr Kwayana tells us that we must always be vigilant to ensure that the three branches of the state ‒ the executive, the legislative and the judicial ‒ remain separate, and that no one arm should seek to control either of the other two. In this case the judicial arm has sought to intrude on the legislative arm in violation of the concept of the separation of powers.
Such an action, if our interpretation of what Justice Chang has ruled is correct, constitutes a violation of Article 9 of the Guyana Constitution which says that “sovereignty belongs to the people and they exercise it through their representatives and the democratic organs established by or under this constitution.” It then follows that laws made by the parliament can be challenged after they are passed, but the standing orders of the Parliament are the law governing the operation of the lawmakers of this country, who are speaking on behalf of the people, and cannot be changed by the judiciary.
Our constitution is very clear: there are those like the PPP and its spokesman Sultan Mohamed who would like us to think that this ruling is in keeping with our constitution, but it is not.
Our constitution expressly confers on our parliament the right to tax and to spend “under their own rules” since only the people have the right to tax and to spend, and they express their opinions through their elected representatives who are acting on their behalf in the National Assembly. (It would clearly be ludicrous for over 400,000 voters to assemble anywhere to do so; they do it through their elected representatives.) In this case the majority of the parliament representing the majority of the voters had instituted cuts to the 2012 and 2013 budgets as they were legally authorised to do by virtue of the fact that they represent the majority of the people in this country; no one man sitting in the high court, can seek to remove those rights from the citizens of this country. It is as simple as that.
But it raises a very fundamental problem and it is this: how can any constitution allow the minority of the people in this country to rule the majority? How can an opposition be in the majority ‒ it’s nonsense! I am informed that the 1980 constitution did not change the concept that the government cannot be in the minority and the opposition in the majority.
I am also informed that if the constitution creates an impossible situation such as this current conundrum we are experiencing since 2011, then it must be changed and corrected now, to avoid it happening in future. This is where the judicial system must get involved. To form the government you must have the majority of the peoples’ mandate to do so.
What has happened here is essentially a direct assault on the constitutional rights of the people in this country who voted in a national election to select their representatives to say how much is to be earned as taxes and spent in the national budget, and no judge can change what the representatives of the people do in the parliament once they are not violating the Standing Orders of the house. And in this case they are not.
What Mr Kwayana has sought successfully to do is to point out that the annual exercise whereby the budget is examined item by item by the National Assembly and then voted on by the majority as acceptable is a farcical exercise, if they do not have the absolute right to change or vary it, and the majority of the people in this country are denied the right to say that they don’t agree with how their taxes are being spent.
There is one important element which must be sought forcefully in the appeal; it is to stay Justice Chang’s decision until the appeals have gone through all of the stages. In addition this ridiculous situation of the minority ruling the majority must be resolved once and for all.
And I urge the opposition to make it clear that this matter is of immense national significance and they must get good lawyers to take this case all the way to the CCJ. The excuse that it’s expensive is wearing thin now; the majority of the people who voted against the PPP must be prepared to stand behind the opposition and help to finance this matter for a resolution before March.
Yours faithfully,
Tony Vieira