Last week, we discussed the Court ruling on the excess expenditure of $4.554 billion that the Minister of Finance had authorised without prior parliamentary approval. We considered that the Chief Justice’s ruling on the Minister’s action to be a correct and sound one, although we had registered our disagreement to his earlier ruling on the 2012 “budget cuts” case. Our Attorney General has downplayed the substantive ruling and has instead chosen to elate himself with the peripheral issue of the denial of the grant of a conservatory order to prevent the Minister from repeating such action in 2015. We, however, felt that the Chief Justice should have granted for reasons discussed last week.
How does the Attorney General now feel, when all along he had vigorously defended the Minister’s action? Is he not first and foremost the Government’s principal legal advisor, as provided for under Article 112 of the Constitution? And what of the Minister who is on record as having stated that if the opportunity presented itself, he would do so again? The Head of the Presidential Secretariat added his voice by considering the ruling as an “excursion” by the Chief Justice. These utterances represent yet another attempt at circling the wagons in the midst of overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, and do no good to the adherence of the rule of law and the protection of the public interest. How unfortunate!
We also referred to Article 219(1) of the Constitution which provides for the Minister to authorise withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund for up to four months to meet the cost of essential services, pending the passing of the Appropriation Act. This is on the assumption that the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure will be presented in the National Assembly within 90 days of the commencement of the financial year, as required by Article 218(1). This sub-article uses the word “shall” which suggests that the submission of the Estimates within the 90 day period is a mandatory constitutional requirement. Can the Minister therefore still authorise withdrawals for the first four months of the year when there is no intention of having the 2015 Appropriation Act in place until September 2015, depending on the outcome of the elections?
Announcement of the dissolution of Parliament
Last Tuesday, the President announced the dissolution of Parliament with effect from last Saturday, 28 February. This is the third in a sequence of announcements that the President has made so far following the tabling on 7 August 2014 of a motion of no confidence in the Government. This motion was triggered following withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund that the Minister had authorised without prior parliamentary approval.
The first announcement was the prorogation of Parliament on 10 November 2014 after a month long delay in resuming the sittings of the Assembly following its two-month recess. The President had stated that his decision was based on his belief that the Opposition wanted to disrupt the agenda of the Legislature by proceeding with the vote of no confidence. This is in contrast to an earlier statement he had made in which he welcomed the opportunity to provide the Government’s explanations to a number of issues raised by the Opposition. The President felt that his decision would allow for time to have meaningful dialogue. Accordingly, he invited the Leader of the Opposition for talks. The latter politely declined on the grounds that previous engagements with the President yielded no meaningful results and that any dialogue must take place within the halls of the Legislature.
Faced with enormous pressures from civil society as well as from one section of the diplomatic community, the President made the second announcement on 20 January 2015 that 11 May 2015 would be the date of elections. He, however, did not dissolve Parliament which is a precondition for holding elections. He has now done so in his third announcement. Instead of acknowledging his mistake, the President defended his action by stating that the delay was to allow the Guyana Elections Commission enough time for claims and objections to be made and for the Commission to process such claims. The President felt that had he not delayed the dissolution of Parliament, the claims and objections period would have been “truncated”, resulting in thousands of voters being disenfranchised. It would be of interest to learn how the Commission and its Chairman feel about the President’s statement.
Constitutional provisions relating to
the dissolution of Parliament
In accordance with Article 70(1) of the Constitution, the President may at any time by proclamation dissolve Parliament while Article 61 provides for elections to be held within three months after the dissolution of Parliament. With the announcement of 11 May 2015 as the date for the elections, we are within the three month rule. However, this article should not be considered in isolation without reference to Article 69(1) which provides for the next session of Parliament to be held not later than four months from the end of the previous session if Parliament has been dissolved. Since Parliament was dissolved on 28 February 2015, and if we consider the last sitting of the Assembly was on 10 November 2014 when Parliament was prorogued, four months later will take us to 10 March 2015. Therefore, elections should be held one month earlier, i.e. 10 February 2015, to allow for the one-month period for the counting of ballots, announcement of the results, resolution of disputes, and the allocations of seats, among others.
Article 69(1) also provides for each session of Parliament to be held within six months of each other in the event of a prorogation. Since Parliament was prorogued on 10 November 2014 and assuming that this was the date of the last session, then the next session has to take place not later than 10 May 2015. Allowing for the one-month period for the resolution of post-election matters, elections should have been held not later than 10 April 2015.
We raise these matters not to add to the confusion as regards the prorogation and dissolution of Parliament, and the fixing of the date for the elections. Rather, we want to emphasise that in dealing with important matters such as national elections, we must be careful to consider all aspects of our legal and constitutional framework and to avoid setting precedents that can come back to haunt us.
Ruling party’s Prime Ministerial candidate
This column is reserving judgment about the suitability of Mrs. Elisabeth Harper who has taken to the political arena without any known baggage and who has come from a decent background. One hopes that she will make a contribution to the much-needed change in the political culture that we have witnessed in the last three years.
The late Attorney General, Doodnauth Singh, once described the scene in the Assembly as one reminiscent of a fish market. He was somewhat generous since, had he been there to witness what transpired in the Assembly during the 2012 budget debate, he would have considered the fish market scene to be far more saintly and serene!
We need to have persons with personal and professional integrity as our elected officials who are prepared to sacrifice their personal interest in preference to the public interest. After all, this is what they are elected to do. One also hopes that in her moment of reflection, Mrs. Harper will realize how badly she erred when she led her Ministry during the orchestrated government protests over the 2012 budget cuts. One day she may very well find herself on the receiving end of her action.
There is no doubt that our current Prime Minister is a decent man. He has, however, overstayed his time during which he stood quiet in the midst of wrongdoing. On occasions when he spoke, he chose the side of the wrong-doer. Mrs. Harper would do well to learn from the Prime Minister’s mistakes. If she is unable to find her voice to speak out against wrongdoing and bad governance, Mrs. Harper should spare no effort to do the honourable thing to preserve her personal and professional integrity. She should not allow herself to be a party in an exercise of “cosmeticism”!
Medical expenses paid for by the State
Ministers of the Government enjoy decent salaries in additional to amounts paid to them by virtue of their being Members of Parliament. They are also in receipt of a range of benefits which include: duty-free concessions on one motor vehicle every three years; generous house allowance; 24 hour guard service; 24-hour access to State vehicles with drivers; free electricity, telephone and maid and handyman services; and generous per diem when on overseas travel.
Take the Attorney General who gets a salary of at least $1.6 million per month in addition to still maintaining his private law practice. How does one explain that he has incurred expenditure of $4.9 million for medical treatment paid for by the Treasury? And what about the Minister of Amerindian Affairs chalking up $2.1 million for dental expenses? What all of this means for good governance, transparency and accountability will be explored next week.
