We can no longer exploit the resources of this earth — the trees, the water, and other natural resources — without any care for coming generations. Common sense tells us that unless we change, we won’t survive. This Earth Day let’s resolve to live in harmony with nature.
Dalai Lama
Whilst Covid-19 has caused a severe international health and economic crisis, failure to tackle climate change may threaten human wellbeing, ecosystems and economies for centuries.
World Meteorological Organisation
Last Wednesday marked the 50th anniversary of Earth Day. It was on this day in 1970 that 20 million Americans demonstrated across the United States against the adverse impact on human health of 150 years of industrial development. The rallying call was for action to be taken to protect the environment. To mark the occasion, the UN Secretary-General stated that while the impact of the virus on global society had been ‘immediate and dreadful’, there was ‘another, even deeper emergency – the planet’s unfolding environmental crisis’. According to an EU Climate Monitoring Service, eleven of the 12 hottest years to date occurred since 2000. The worldwide coronavirus lockdowns across the world have also seen the skies clearing of pollution, especially in China and India, where the snow-capped Himalayan mountain range now becomes visible in several parts of northern India.
Last Monday, the WTI price of crude oil dipped further to US$15.65 per barrel, the lowest in 21 years. This was due mainly to falling demand caused by the coronavirus pandemic and the glut in the supply, despite the cuts in production agreed on by Russia and Saudi Arabia. There is also the problem with storage resulting in the U.S. Department of Energy considering paying domestic producers to keep the crude in the ground. The US futures oil prices for next month have since plunged into negative territory for the first time in history.
It has been 56 days since citizens took to the polls to elect a government of their choice to manage the affairs of the State on their behalf. Despite this, the Elections Commission is yet to declare the winner to enable a new government to be formed, legislators to be selected and the next session of Parliament to commence. While there was general agreement among the contesting parties and local and international observers as regards the results of the poll for nine of the ten regions, there was huge controversy surrounding the announcement of the results for Region 4. The two days of infamy – 5 and 13 March – saw the crudest and most vulgar attempts to tamper with the results for Region 4 to enable GECOM to declare the APNU+AFC coalition the winner of the elections.
Had it not been for the public exposure by the international observers and the diplomatic missions in Guyana of what they witnessed on these two days as well as the threat of sanctions by the Western nations, the President would have been sworn in on the basis of these flawed results. This would have ushered in a second wave of undemocratic and authoritarian rule in the history of Guyana, the first being the 24-year period from 1968 to 1992. GECOM sat idly and allowed the tampering of the vote count to take place, instead of invoking its powers under Article 162 (1) (b) of the Constitution which provides for it to take all necessary actions ‘to ensure impartiality, fairness and compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of any Act of Parliament…’ In the hope of avoiding sanctions which would bring the country to its knees, President Granger and the Opposition Leader agreed to a total recount of all the votes cast. We had argued against the total recount because of the time it would take to do so, other complexities that this might entail and any unforeseen difficulties. Rather, we had suggested a continuation of the count for Region 4 from the point where there had been a deviation from the legal requirement to use Statements of Poll as the basis for the tabulation of the results. We believe that it would not have taken more than a day or two to complete the count.
Status of the recount of the votes
Early last week, GECOM Chair announced that there would be no more than ten workstations for the recount of the votes, subject to the availability of relevant technology equipment and that CARICOM was written to requesting the presence of the high-level team to ‘validate’ the results. She did not indicate when the exercise would commence, how long it would take and who would be involved in the recount. There have been calls for those who have been fingered in the manipulation of the results for Region 4, to be excluded from the exercise. GECOM also requested the National COVID-19 Task Force, headed by Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo, to provide advice on how to proceed in the light of the curfew currently in force and the measures taken in relation to the pandemic.
The Prime Minister responded as follows:
(a) GECOM must adjust its desired 10-hour work schedule within the daily curfew timeframe of 6 a.m. to 5 p.m.;
(b) Overseas observers, including the CARICOM team, are to submit themselves to being quarantined at a government institution for a period of 14 days; and
(c) The Commission must allow four technical experts of the Public Health Emergency Operations Centre to conduct a site visit to assess whether distancing arrangements conform to the pandemic guidelines and the published Order.
GECOM has been criticized for seeking the advice of the Task Force, considering the Commission’s independence from the Executive, and more specifically in the performance of its duties, it is subject to the direction and control of no person or authority. Besides, the Task Force has no legal status and is headed by a politician from the APNU+AFC one of whose candidates for the elections sought the intervention of the court to block the recount. It has been argued that the Task Force may have a vested interest in delaying the recount and that it should have comprised experts from the medical profession, not politicians.
The Prime Minister was roundly criticized for his response, especially as regards the requirement for the CARICOM team and international observers to be quarantined upon arrival. There have been suggestions that once these officials have been screened by the authorities in their countries before leaving for Guyana, there is no need for them to be quarantined. The President was forced to intervene in the matter and has reversed the decision of the Task Force on the question of quarantine.
On Friday, the Commission was locked in discussion about the specifics of the recount, including the drafting of an order to be gazetted, with no date for the commencement of the exercise in sight. It is also divided as to whether to exclude certain persons from the exercise, with the Government-nominated commissioners arguing that there are no specific allegations against the persons fingered, despite evidence to the contrary. They felt that certain positions are statutory and cannot be interfered with. However, there ought to be some mechanism for persons to be removed if they display bias and are complicit in the tampering of the election results. Even holders of constitutional offices, including the GECOM Chair, can be removed for misconduct, inability to perform or ill-health, subject to adherence to certain procedures. The OAS Observer Mission has specifically stated that the officials to be engaged in the recount should be selected based on their impartiality, and those who were involved in partisan behaviour excluded from the exercise.
GECOM has now stated that the recount is expected to take at least 25 days; the Returning Officer for Region 4 would not be involved; and it was awaiting word from CARICOM before deciding on the starting date. The Commission, however, voted against auditors being present to observe the recount as well as live streaming of the proceedings, as suggested by the opposition-nominated commissioners.
The Commission also ruled that the declaration of the results for all the Regions remains valid unless it is reversed by the outcome of the vote recount. In essence, this means that, should the recount not arrive at a conclusion satisfactory to all the political parties contesting the elections, GECOM could proceed to declare APNU+AFC the winner of the elections. There is therefore the incentive to scuttle the recount exercise by those who have been complicit in tampering with the original tabulation of Region 4 votes as well as by those who have given silent consent to this fraudulent, unconscionable, despicable and unpatriotic act.
No Parliament
Parliament was dissolved on 30 December 2019, paving the way for national and regional elections. The new session of Parliament is required to be convened within four months of dissolution, which means that the deadline for doing so is three days from today. With the date for the commencement of the recount still to be decided as well as the time it would take for the exercise to be concluded, meeting this deadline is not possible, thereby resulting in yet another constitutional violation.
Since 23 May 2019, there has been no sitting of the National Assembly. In fact, the Assembly met on only four occasions for the entire 2019: 3 January, 26 April, 15 May and 23 May. This was mainly due to the 21 December 2018 vote of confidence in the Government and the prolonged court battle to establish its validity. That battle ended on 18 June 2019 and therefore elections should have been held not later than 18 September 2019. To compound matters, there was controversy over the readiness of GECOM to conduct the elections which resulted in further delays, eventually culminating in the announcement of the date of elections and then the dissolution of Parliament.
Implications for the National Budget
Article 218(1) of the Constitution states that no withdrawals can be made from the Consolidated Fund except to meet expenditure charged upon the Fund by the Constitution or any Act of Parliament; or where issues are authorized by an Appropriation Act. By Article 219, the Minister of Finance is required to prepare and submit to the National Assembly Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure within 90 days of the commencement of the fiscal year in respect of that year. After the Estimates are approved by the Assembly, an Appropriation Bill is prepared and approved by the Assembly authorizing withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund to meet expenditure contained in the Estimates. The Appropriation Bill becomes Appropriation Law when it is assented to by the President.
For the years 2017, 2018 and 2019, the budget for the following year was tabled in the Assembly and approved before the close of the fiscal year, a move that was considered a progressive one. Unfortunately, the President proceeded to dissolve Parliament on 30 December 2019 without first ensuring that a budget in place for 2020. So how is expenditure on public services being funded at this point in time?
Pending the passing of an Appropriation Act, the Minister of Finance can authorize withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund up to four months to meet the cost of essential services. The amount withdrawn is limited to one-twelfth of the preceding year’s expenditure by each budget agency for each of these months. These are provided for under Article 220(1) of the Constitution and Section 36 of the FMA Act. By Article 220(3), where Parliament is dissolved before any provision or insufficient provision is made to meet the cost of public services, the Minister can authorize similar withdrawals for up to three months.
In all probability, the Minister would have used Article 220(1) to access funds to 30 April 2020. With no Parliament currently in place to approve of the 2020 Estimates, there is no provision for the Minister to access the Consolidated Fund for the month of May onwards. By Article 220(4), he nevertheless has recourse to the Contingencies Fund to meet expenditure that is urgent and for which no other provision exists. Section 41 of the FMA Act elaborates by stating that the expenditure must also be unforeseen and unavoidable, and cannot be deferred without jeopardising the public internet. The total of the amounts to be withdrawn is limited to two percent of the preceding year’s approved Estimates.
The approved Estimates for 2019 amounted to $300.7 billion. Therefore, the maximum amount that could be withdrawn from the Contingencies Fund in 2020 is $6.014 billion. It is unclear how much was already withdrawn for the year so far. Even if no funds were withdrawn, the amount of $6.014 billion will be insufficient to meet the cost of essential services until the next session of Parliament is convened. How is the difference to be funded is anyone’s guess!
