Arguments commence in Court Action against ‘unauthorized’ spending by Gov’t

By Kurt Campbell

In an application filed on the December 12, 2014 the main opposition – A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) – said it was seeking to stop unauthorized spending by the Government and spending on programmes that were disapproved by the Parliament.

Mckay opened arguments today (Wednesday, January 07); disputing that the affidavit provided by Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, who is representing the government and the Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh, had nothing of substance, according to Attorney Basil Williams.

The hearing was held in Chief Justice Ian Chang’s Chambers. Williams reminded that APNU’s contention is that despite the disapproval made by the parliamentary opposition to government’s proposed spending, the Minister of Finance still spent some $4.5 billion on the same programmes that were not approved.

This act the APNU has said, amounts to a breach of the doctrine of the separation of powers as it abridged the decisions of the Parliament and its independence.

“There were really no answers to the contentions raised in the application for the Conservatory action,” according to Williams who referred to authorities from Kenya and Trinidad where Conservatory Orders were granted in similar circumstances.

He reasoned that those orders were granted on the basis of a need to protect the public coffers.

“This is very important, that where the public coffers are threatened a conservatory order was issued.”

He cautioned that if at the end of the hearing the “decision is lost then there is no where you can get back monies that would have been spent.”

Meanwhile, the respondents’ arguments were led by Attorney Aston Chase; the Attorney General is expected to commence his arguments when the matter is called again on Friday, January 09.

Nandlall told Reporters that “Government’s position is that there is nothing to defend, that the Minister of Finance acted in compliance with constitutional provisions that are well known and he followed those constitutional procedures.”

The Attorney General maintained that neither the government nor the Finance Minister acted in any manner contrary to the Constitution of Guyana.

According to the AG, the order that is being sought by the Opposition is misconceived.

“I think this case was filed as a mere after thought because it seeks to restrain spending when the spending would have almost been completed… it was a badly thought out strategy and decision to implement or institute in the first place.”

Both parties are confident of a successful and favorable outcome.