One month has passed since AFC Leader Khemraj Ramjattan lodged a complaint regarding the alleged illegal spending by Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh and to date police have not made a pronouncement on the matter.
Despite efforts yesterday, this newspaper was unable to ascertain from the police the reason/s for the delay. The last word from Crime Chief Leslie James was that the matter was “under examination”. This information was provided about two weeks after the complaint was made.
Contacted yesterday, Ramjattan said that he has heard nothing from the police about the matter. He said that sometime this week he intends to approach the Commissioner of Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). When Stabroek News had spoken with him previously, Ramjattan had stated that he was expecting the Force to issue a public statement. He said too that he had learnt from police sources that it has been realized that the Minister has done a “big wrong.” He said too that given the nature of the matter – that it was a “big wrong” and that the minister holds a senior position – the sources have related that the matter has to be analyzed thoroughly as it is “no ordinary matter.” He stressed that he has been told that the matter will take some time to be analyzed.
It was decided that action had to be taken after it was realized that government had spent more than $4.5 billion of the $37.4 billion disapproved from this year’s $220 billion national budget. Singh, on June 19, tabled Financial Paper 1 of 2014 seeking the approval of the House for the extra-budgetary spending.
After expressing the desire several times to officially complain to the police about the alleged illegal spending, the AFC finally made its move on July 18. Ramjattan lodged a nine-page complaint and brief to the police.
He based his case on the violation of the provisions of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003, as monies were spent without having obtained legislative authorization, and sections of the Guyana Constitution.
Ramjattan said in his document that the minister’s action constituted an improper disposal of public monies. It was on these grounds he said there was enough to convey criminal liability not only in regard to the minister but those under him once it is determined that they went against the sections of the legislation he had quoted.
