Constitution provides four instances where spending can be undertaken without prior Parliamentary approval
In Stabroek News of 2020.09.07, under the bold headline, `APNU+AFC has not said how much of US$18m signing bonus spent on border controversy fees’, Hon Anil Nandlall, the incumbent Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, is quoted as saying “I don’t know if any other sums were paid, as there were no parliamentary sitting for over one year and one half and monies were being spent unlawfully, without any parliamentary approval.”
I wish to make three comments on what he allegedly said. First, it is easy for him to find out if any other sums were paid to the lawyers (or any other related party for that matter) by simply requesting the information from the Accounting Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Alternatively, he could make a request to the Auditor General, who should have completed the 2019 Public Accounts.
Second, prior to 2020.09.01, the last time Parliament met was on 2019.05.23. This would make it roughly 15 months - instead of the 18 months implied in Nandlall’s statement – that the Parliament did not meet. Those 15 months include 8 months during which the Parliament was dissolved.
Third, and more substantively, Mr Nandlall persists in giving the impression that the Coalition Government was spending money unlawfully, in the absence of Parliamentary approval. This is a Goebbelian falsehood – repeated often enough so as to make it ring true.
The reality is that the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana provides four instances in which spending can be undertaken without prior Parliamentary approval. The first, and most germane to the situation in which the country found itself during the previous 8 months, is when the Parliament has been dissolved. Article 219 (3) provides the relevant guidance: Where at any time
Parliament has been dissolved before any provision or any sufficient provision is made … for the carrying on of the Government of Guyana, the Minister responsible for finance may authorise the withdrawal of such sums from the Consolidated Fund as he or she may consider necessary for the purpose of meeting expenditure on the public services until the expiry of a period of three months commencing with the date on which the National Assembly first meets after dissolution, but a statement of the expenditure so authorised shall, as soon as practicable be laid before the Assembly by the Minister responsible for finance or any other Minister designated by the President and, when the statement has been approved by the Assembly, that expenditure shall be included, under the appropriate heads, in the next Appropriation Bill. [my italics] Without this Article, it would have been difficult to adequately finance the 2020 General and Regional Elections, for example.
The second instance is when a budget is presented and approved after the start of the financial year. In this case, the Constitution authorises expenditure in advance of appropriation, as is pellucid in Article 219 (1): …, if the Appropriation Act in respect of any financial year has not come into operation by the beginning of that financial year, the Minister responsible for finance may authorise the withdrawal of moneys from the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of meeting expenditure necessary to carry on the services of the Government of Guyana until the expiration of four months from the beginning of that financial year or the coming into operation of the Act, whichever is the earlier. [my italics]
Implied in this Article is the necessity for budgets to be presented and passed before the start of the financial year, something that was achieved for the last 3 budgets of the Coalition Government. When this is not done, the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act (FMAA) imposes a restriction (some view it as a harsh and arbitrary penalty) of 1/12th of the previous year’s ‘latest expenditure to date’, for each month that the budget is not in place, until the budget is approved, which is no later than April of the current financial year.
The third instance occurs in a situation (a) where the amount appropriated is insufficient; or (b) where moneys have been expended for any purpose in excess of the amount appropriated for that purpose. In either case, the Constitution requires, at Article 218 (3) that “a supplementary estimate or, as the case may be, a statement of excess showing the sums required or spent shall be laid before the National Assembly by the Minister responsible for finance or any other Minister designated by the President.”
Finally, there is the well-known issue of the Contingency Fund (CF). Article 220 (1) establishes the Contingency Fund and gives the Minister responsible for finance the authority to make advances from the Fund, once he or she is satisfied that there is an urgent need for the expenditure for which no other provision exists. Article 220 (2) provides for the replenishment of the CF, a process that involves the Minister responsible for finance or any other Minister designated by the President laying a supplementary estimate in the National Assembly.
I rest my case.