Following the Minister of Finance’s presentation of the 2015 Budget on 10 August 2015, the National Assembly began a week-long general debate on the budget speech, as provided for by Section 71 of the Standing Orders of the National Assembly. The debate was to be confined to the financial and economic state of the country and the general principles of Government policy and administration as indicated by the Budget Speech and the Estimates.
It was a welcome relief that the Opposition Members of Parliament participated in the debate, notwithstanding their decision to boycott the proceedings on the day the budget was presented. The general debate concluded in the wee hours of Saturday morning.
It all started well with the Leader of the Opposition Leader pledging to lead a responsible Opposition and to hold the Government to a very high standard, 
especially as regards the pledges it had made in the election campaign. This is consistent with the tenets of democratic norms and values and would have gained the support of all those who believe in good governance, transparency and accountability. However, no sooner had the debate started than the proceedings began to degenerate in a manner reminiscent of the 10th Parliament. On several occasions, the Speaker was forced to appeal to Members to approach the debate with some degree of civility. Given that the debate is being televised live for all Guyanese and indeed the world to view, it behoves our elected representatives to conduct themselves in a manner befitting of the high office they hold.
There were two matters of contention that surfaced during the general debate. The first relates to the passing of a motion to restrict the debate on the Estimates to three days. The second pertains to who should be the penultimate speaker in the debate: the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition? The first resulted in the Opposition’s brief walk-out of the Chambers immediately after the vote. As regards the second issue, the Prime Minister was listed in the Order Paper as the penultimate speaker without consultation with the Opposition’s Chief Whip. This prompted the Opposition Members to stage another walk-out after the Opposition Leader made his 90-minute presentation. The rest of the proceedings on Friday evening went ahead with only the Government Members in attendance. Both events were an unfortunate development, and one hopes that this pattern will not be repeated in the consideration of the Estimates over the next three days.
Duration of the debate of the estimates
Today, the Assembly will resolve itself into the Committee of Supply to consider the Estimates. Standing Order 73.1 provides for a maximum of seven days for the consideration of the Estimates in the Committee of Supply. The Prime Minister had proposed a motion for the debate on the Estimates to be restricted to three days on the grounds that the Government had important matters to attend to and that the hours of the sitting of the Assembly would be extended as a compensatory measure.
The Opposition vigorously opposed the proposal, citing long-standing practice as well as the fact that several Ministries have been reorganised. The latter would require more time for the Estimates to be properly scrutinized since there are two sets of estimates for such Ministries – one covering the period prior to their reorganization and the other subsequent to their reorganisation. The Opposition’s Chief Whip sought the intervention of the Speaker who ruled as follows: “It seems to me that Text 73. 1 speaks of the maximum time and not the
minimum time, and I find no fault with the motion presented.” The motion was put to the vote and was passed.
It is the view of this Column that the matter could have been resolved if both sides of the House had made a sincere and dedicated effort to engage in a meaningful dialogue prior to the sitting of the Assembly with a view to resolving the matter. If such discussions had taken place, a compromise solution could have been reached which might have seen the debate lasting for four days, along with the proposed extension of the hours of the sitting of the Assembly. However, at the time, the Opposition had not committed itself to a timeframe for its Members to take up their seats in the Assembly. This would have therefore been a constraining factor.
Order of speaking in the general debate
While we know that the Minister of Finance is the last person to speak during the general debate on the Budget, the Standing Orders of the National Assembly do not provide guidance on who should be penultimate speaker. The Opposition Members of Parliament argued that it is the Opposition Leader since this has always been the practice. The Govern-ment’s side, on the other hand, wanted the Prime Minister to be the last person. As a result, the Opposition’s Chief Whip approached the Speaker for a ruling, and it was agreed that the Clerk of the Assembly would do the necessary research and advise accordingly.
It is not clear what the Clerk’s advice was. If his research did not turn up anything that could be used as a guide, it would reasonable for the Assembly to follow past practices. If the Prime Minister is the penultimate speaker, the Opposition would have viewed this arrangement as one in which there would be two rebuttals of the Opposition Leader’s arguments. This appears to be the crux of the matter. However, the fact that the Prime Minister was slated to be the penultimate speaker should not have led to the Opposition Members abandoning the debate immediately after the Opposition Leader spoke.
Political neutrality in the public service
The former Director of Sports, Mr. Neil Kumar, was relieved of his position when the new Administration took up office. During the debate Mr. Kumar contended that his removal was an act of discrimination. Unlike Mr. Hydar Ally who is member of the Central Executive of the Opposition political party, the former Director is a Member of Parliament representing the political Opposition. That places him in a situation of conflict of interest, and the two roles are incompatible with each other. One recalls Ms. Elisabeth Harper resigning her position in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to become the prime ministerial candidate for the PPP/C. This would have been the morally and ethically upright thing to do.
If Mr. Kumar had wanted to remain as Director of Sports, he should have declined his nomination as a Member of Parliament. He also claimed that he was interviewed by the former Minister of Education, the late Mr. Dale Bisnauth. Since the position of Director of Sports is a public service position, in the first place the Public Service Commission should have been involved in the recruitment, and not the Minister.
Forensic audits and the role of the Auditor General
During his contribution to the debate, the former Attorney General referred to the forensic audits being conducted and argued that they are in breach of Article 223 of the Constitution which vests with the Auditor General the authority to audit the public accounts of Guyana. The Auditor General is the external auditor of the public sector and his role relates mainly to the audit of the annual financial statements that constitute the public accounts and reporting the results to the Assembly. It is the ex post evaluation of the budget execution which provides the necessary feedback to the Legislature on how well the Executive has utilized the financial resources provided to it in the execution of Government programmes and activities.
The “forensic” audits are, however, managerial in nature and bear little or no relationship to the financial statements audits. If the latter were true, then the former Attorney General has a case in point. That apart, perhaps it has been a misnomer to describe these audits as “forensic” in nature. A forensic audit relates to the gathering of evidence that can be used in a Court of Law to prosecute anyone alleged to have committed fraud or acts of misappropriation. Compare this with the introduction to the terms of reference for these audits: The Government of Guyana is reviewing the performance and efficiency of publicly owned entities, statutory bodies, projects and activities financed by or through public funds and has commenced a number of forensic audits and reviews. One also needs to reflect on the main terms of reference for the audits to appreciate the difference:
To determine the entity’s adherence to and fulfillment of principles of corporate governance in all aspects, including its interpretation of its mission, adherence to legal or statutory and policy instruments and good practices; and
To carry out a comprehensive financial systems review which should look at all systems, decisions and practices which have underpinned the entity’s finances, and test and assess financial discipline at all levels.
In accordance with Section 4 (3) of the Audit Act 2004, the Minister of Finance may request the Public Accounts Commit-tee (PAC) to cause an additional audit to be conducted by an auditor other that the Auditor General. As of today, there is no PAC in place, and given the urgency with which such reviews are required to be carried out as a kind of stock-taking exercise for the new Administration, the Minister took the initiative to commission these audits. The Minister within the Ministry of Finance has explained in the assembly the procedures that were followed in the selection of auditing firms and individuals to conduct the special reviews. The reviews were also decided at a time when the members of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board were being replaced.
Cheddi Jagan Research Centre
It came as a shock to many when it was disclosed in the Assembly that the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre has been leased to a private company bearing a similar name – Cheddi Jagan Research Inc. Considering that this building was completely refurbished at enormous costs to the State, the shock was even greater to learn that the property was leased since 2012 to this company for a nominal sum of $1,000 per month for a period of 99 years. To add salt to injury, the staff of the Centre continued to be paid by the Treasury.
The agreement should therefore be rescinded, and those responsible should be held personally responsible for this abuse/misuse of public resources, which by definition constitutes an act of corruption.
