Dear Editor,
I am attempting to take up the challenge posed to Opposition MPs by Christopher Ram in his letter ‘The opposition should display more interest …’ (SN, November 15, 2014). In this letter and in a recent article on his blog, which was the subject of an article in your paper on November 13, 2014 Mr Ram asserts (the latter) and interprets (the former) that article 219. (1) of the Constitution (automatically) gives interim spending authority to the Government on expenditure necessary to carry on its services up to 30th April, 2015 if necessary.
Re-reading the above article of the Constitution, I do not share Mr Ram’s opinion and my interpretation is that Parliamentary approval is required for any interim spending as stated. While it may have been the practice in years gone by that the Government acted on the assumption that Mr Ram does it must be noted that firstly, it was in an environment where the Government enjoyed a parliamentary majority and secondly what may have been a tolerant Opposition in the current Parliament. The latter situation cannot now be assumed.
If my interpretation is correct, the Government’s authority to spend would end on December 31, 2014 (excluding of course the unlawful spending they are engaged in –‘What about the unconstitutional spending that is currently taking place (SN, November 15, 2014). Spending beyond that date, therefore, would require either compliance with article 219. (1) or an Appropriations Act 2015. There is as well nothing in the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 that impinges on this imperative.
Article 219. (1) is explicit in the need for an Appropriations Act to be in place at the beginning of the financial year (1st January) but in the absence of same ‘Parliament may make provision’ for the Finance Minister to authorize conditional withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund for a period of up to four months.
Should the President, however, dissolve Parliament anytime before December 31, 2014 which he is empowered to do, then the Government can lawfully access the Consolidated Fund for up to three months thereafter ‘for the purpose of meeting expenditure on the public services’ (219. (3).
The implications of the above I believe are clear. In the current situation, article 219. (1) will ensure that the tyrannical action of President Ramotar in suspending parliamentary democracy will not last beyond 31st December, 2014 and not the potentially extended timeframe that many commentators are suggesting. The Constitution is not so ‘anti-democratic’ after all.
The caution that Mr Ram urges be taken as to what kind of expenditure are permissible under articles 219. (1) and 219. (3) is duly noted.
Finally it hardly needs saying that both Mr Ram and I are at one in his further caution as to the inherent risk in leaving any ‘principled work’ to the person who is now the Attorney General.
Yours faithfully,
Ronald Bulkan
