An eight-hour parliamentary session to consider two financial papers on Thursday has left the government disappointed as the opposition used its majority to disrupt the now annual routine passage of the papers through the House.

The government brought two supplementary financial papers to the House to the tune of some GUY$3.5B (Financial Paper No.8) and GUY$2.24B (Financial Paper No.7) but ended the day with only some GUY$2.16B of the latter approved and the other sent back.

Most of the sitting was spent going through the 13 items and sub-units of Financial Paper No.7.

When discussion on the larger allocation began APNU’s Carl Greenidge called on Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh to withdraw the paper and have it resubmitted with more details in keeping with the Financial Management and Accountability Act (FMAA) and this was seconded by the AFC’s Khemraj Ramjattan.

But Dr. Singh argued that there was no basis for the call because the section of the Act cited by Greenidge was irrelevant since it dealt with money advanced from the Contingencies Fund while the GUY$3.5B was money was from donors.

“Financial Paper Number 8 has nothing to do with amounts spent from the Contingencies Fund; it has to do entirely with donors disbursing resources in excess of what was anticipated.

“We’re not asking for the approval of any expenditure that was made using domestic resources, we are asking merely for approval of specific appropriations.

Dr. Singh said he was taken completely by surprise since it was the “tradition” that the Opposition had never questioned the inflows before.

But Ramjattan in his presentation stated that not because it happened that way before meant it was in keeping with the law. He noted that it was the PPP/C government that had brought the FMAA in 2003 to the House to improve transparency.

After a short adjournment to see if the parties could arrive at a decision on the way forward Leader of the House Prime Minister Samuel Hinds announced at 10PM that they had failed to do so and parliament was adjourned until March 15.

Immediately afterward, the government called a news briefing where Hinds, Dr Singh, Juan Edghill and Gail Teixeira addressed reporters on their dismay at the turn of events which they said was unprecedented.

“We’re very disappointed in how things went this afternoon in the House. In particular four of our heads were not carried in the replenishment of the Contingencies Fund,” Hinds stated.

The heads referred to GUY$25.5M for the conferment of the National Awards and other events hosted by the Office of the President (OP); GUY$6.5M in honorarium for the staff of the Guyana Register Office; a GUY$36M allocation for security equipment under OP; and GUY$29.1 for infrastructural works on the specialty hospital project.

The opposition parties withheld support in light of what they said was unsatisfactory answers, insufficient details and improper documentation.

“What we witnessed today was the coming together of the APNU and AFC to withhold parliamentary imprimatur being granted to expenditure that was incurred from the Contingencies Fund in accordance with the law,” Dr. Singh said.

According to the minister, the opposition may have been putting on a political grand stand or flexing its muscle since it has a majority in the House. He also expressed amazement that Financial Paper No.8 was not approved even though the government had said it was prepared to answer any question on the paper.

“There can be no conclusion in my mind that the aim of this withholding of approval is to stymie the legitimate work of the government,” Dr. Singh declared. “I think the real hand of the opposition was disclosed today as it relates to collaboration and willingness to cooperate.”

Meanwhile, Greenidge, a former PNC finance minister, also spoke to reporters and sought to clarify the reasoning behind the opposition’s rejection of some items saying many of the explanations failed to meet the requirements.

“In many instances with these advances from the Contingencies the meeting wasn’t satisfied that they (government) actually spent in accordance with the law, or the explanations that were provided were unsatisfactory,” he said adding that those not approved were the worst cases.

According to Greenidge, someone will have to be held accountable for those items on which the government has already made payment or they can ensure that they are properly documented and returned to the House for its approval.

“Our purpose here is simply to ensure that the government lives within the ambits of the law, a law that they themselves fashioned and a law that requires that they provide explanations so if it was just an explanation that was missing they can bring it back and we can pass it,” Greenidge stated.

Turning his attention to Financial Paper No. 8, he said the minister seems to believe that the opposition should be content with whatever information they provide or raise its questions on the floor.

“But do you know what’s been happening when you ask the questions orally? The minister can opt not to respond at all. That is unsatisfactory, I don’t know of another place where a minister not citing security, not citing lack of information can just not answer,” Greenidge said.

According to him, the next time they come before the House they will know that a certain amount of information will have to be provided.

He too accused his colleagues across the parliamentary floor of grandstanding.

‘In all instances they’ve already advanced the monies, the monies have been spent but they will still take the item and say to the public you see these wicked people in the  opposition, they didn’t want you to have money for this hospital or for that electricity generating plant, it’s completely untrue, the monies have been spent.”