Dear Editor,
Knock me down with a feather if this makes sense. Should the opposition APNU- AFC, in contempt of court, again slash the 2014 budget, less development resources would be spent by the PPP/C government and substantially more Guyanese would greatly benefit. In other words, when the APNU-AFC opposition keeps on slashing money from the 2014 budget, Guyanese would be better off! Amazing? Sounds like fancy footwork or stupidity at its best.
Conscious that the APNU-AFC opposition is the inevitable government in waiting why do they persist in damaging their credibility? That a former military leader without any government experience is now in charge of the PNC, and seems unable to command his failed shadow finance minster to do his duty is a tragedy for all Guyanese. But no minority government can effectively continue to government, not by shared government, but by compromises and accommodation. Talks are paramount. “All are involved. All are consumed,” reminds national poet Martin Carter.
Should a prolific visible advocate of conservation of Guyana’s natural forestry resources gone atop the trees to register disagreement with the Chief Justice’s ruling on the budget, explain why USAID’s Lead project’s budget has such potency? Was Ms Janette Bulkan in deliberate flashing obfuscation of Guyana’s constitution and its legalities to aid and abet its contempt? What is transparent is the judiciary’s ruling may not mesh with her proud conservation objectives. (See SN of February 19)
The legal reality that the 1980 Guyana constitution specifically pinpoints that the National Assembly cannot in part by Article 171 (a) “proceed upon any Bill (including any amendment to a Bill) which, in the opinion of the person presiding, makes provision for any of the following purposes: (i) for imposing or increasing any tax; (ii) for imposing any charge upon the Consolidated Fund or any other public fund of Guyana or for altering any such charge otherwise than by reducing it… Except on the recommendation or with the consent of the Cabi-
net signified by a Minister…” has found a few like Ms Bulkan not showered before diving into the swimming pool. The desire to swim like the right to disagree in a functional democracy cannot be in dispute. What is incorrect and unjustified is seen in her flawed conclusions. Ms Bulkan shares a flawed wisdom to let us know: “So the National Assembly cannot without cabinet/ministerial agreement impose a tax or increase a tax.
Nor can it change any proposed use of the Consolidated Fund tax other than by reducing the amount of the proposed use.
But Article 171 (a) (ii) allows the Assembly to reduce proposed expenditure from the Consolidated Fund even if the cabinet/minister disagrees.” Where does Ms Bulkan find constitutional justification to reduce the budget “even if the cabinet/minister disagrees” to invalidate the Chief Justice’s ruling? Here is the deliberate distortion which sows confusion to the unfamiliar.
By acrobatic logic she quotes the 1980 constitution and seems reasonable enough to confirm parts of the judiciary’s decision as correct. Why does she undermine her previously guided reasonableness to ignore, deny and dismiss the democratic constitutional imperative of prior cabinet consent and recommendation of the budget through the relevant minister? Even if the Finance Minister disagrees with the critics he has to signal agreement after necessary compromises in the Committee of Supply. If not the opposition says no budget and the National Assembly remains gridlock constipated with the government grinding to a halt. The final alternative is fresh elections.
In quoting the 1980 Guyana constitution Ms Bulkan will have found that any changes, alterations or reaffirmations can only be through the judicial process from within the same constitution so specified.
The Chief Justice has done his constitutional duty in his clarified ruling. What he has not done is prevented, directed, denied, compromised their independence, or obstructed the legislature from talking with each other, or making compromises to make Guyana progress.
Guyana has oil and “oil don’t spoil” as Dr Eric Williams boasted about Trinidad. Either Guyanese swim together or fry in their oil. Who gets the oil is obvious.
Yours faithfully,
Sultan Mohamed
