 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
toubab1020
12237 Posts |
 Posted - 11 Feb 2021 : 09:56:56
|
==========
https://www.chronicle.gm/supreme-court-steps-aside-mps-get-free-ride-to-access-d54-4-million-loan/
==========
Supreme Court Steps Aside, MPs Get Free Ride To Access D54.4 million Loan
BY Frederic Tendeng on Feb 10, 2021
Staffs of the National Assembly and Members of the Parliament will likely lay hand on the sum of 54.5 million dalasis they allocated themselves as a loan, purportedly to develop some plots of land they benefited from the Executive. The Supreme Court of The Gambia has this Wednesday ruled not to grant an interim injunction to block the disbursement of the parliamentarians’ loan as sought by Gambia Participate and the Center for Research and Policy Development, two organizations of the Gambia Civil Society.
The civil suit defeated today at the Supreme Court was filed by the two CSOs arguing that the approval of the annual estimates of the revenue and expenditure for the year 2021 with the inclusion of the sum of D54.4 million as a loan for National Assembly Members and its staff is “an usurpation of his powers” and “a violation of the National Assembly standing orders”.
The Civil Society Organizations asked in their suit that the Supreme Court issue an injunction for the 54.5 million dalasis not be accessed by the clerk of the National Assembly as first Defendant.
The injunction sought by the CSOs would have requested that the Auditor General, second defendant, the ministry of Finance and Economic affairs, 3rd defendant and the Attorney general as the 4th defendant do each whatever in its capacity to block the release of the money to National Assembly Members and their staff.
As it is now, nothing stops the MPs to access the 54.5 million dalasis despite the huge outcry from the average Gambian asking the members of the legislative to seek loans from the banks instead of filling their pockets from the tax payers’ approved annual estimates of the revenue and expenditure. |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
 |
|
|
toubab1020
12237 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2021 : 12:33:36
|
==========
https://foroyaa.net/the-54-million-dalasi-allocation-to-parliament-and-elections/
===========
The 54 Million Dalasi Allocation To Parliament And Elections
he Independent Electoral Commission is experiencing shortfalls in the allocation of resources. Donors are questioning why Gambia needs help to finance its own elections.
The issue of the 54 million dalasi is not what the Court may finally decide on. The National Assembly is the law- making body of the land. It knows its own procedures.
Section 101 Subsection (4) is clear.
It reads:
(4) Without prejudice to the power of the National Assembly to make any amendment (whether by the increase or reduction of any tax or charges, or the amount of any payment or withdrawal, or otherwise), the National Assembly shall not give consideration to a Bill that in the opinion of the person presiding makes provision for any of the following purposes –
(i) the imposition of taxation or the alteration of taxation;
(ii) the imposition of any charges on the Consolidated Revenue Fund or any other public fund of The Gambia or the alteration of any such charge;
(iii) the payment, issue or withdrawal from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or any other public fund of The Gambia of moneys not charged thereon or any increase in the amount of such payment, issue or withdrawal; or
(iv) the composition or remission of any debt due to the Government.”
It is incontrovertible that estimates and appropriation Bill proposing charges emanate from the executive represented by the Minister of Finance. The National Assembly can only amend the proposal, but cannot impose original charges on the executive.
National Assembly members are entitled to what others are entitled to. That should be done without reducing other estimates to add to their own.
It is no surprise that the International Community is raising eyebrows as IEC expresses it shortfalls. The National Assembly members should take note. |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11511 Posts |
Posted - 04 May 2021 : 15:17:18
|
BREAKING NEWS!!!
The supreme court of the Gambia has ruled that the national assembly violated the constitution when it amended and allocated D54.4m as loan scheme to members. It's declared it null and void and struck it out from the 2021 budget. |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11511 Posts |
Posted - 05 May 2021 : 11:08:23
|
Supreme Court Declares Creation of 54.4 Million Dalasi Loan Scheme for Lawmakers Unconstitutional
Foroyaa: May 4, 2021
By Yankuba Jallow & Mariama Marong
In a unanimous decision, Justices of the Supreme Court of The Gambia on Tuesday, 4th May, held that the National Assembly has no powers to create a new budget line in the budget estimates.
On the 26th November 2020, nominated National Assembly Member Ya Kumba Jaiteh moved a motion for the amendment of the estimates which was approved by the members. The lawmakers created a new budget line of 54.4 million dalasi as Loan Scheme for Parliamentarians and staff of the National Assembly Service Scheme.
Sequel to this decision, Plaintiffs (Gambia Participates and the Center for Policy and Research Development) instituted civil action against the Clerk of the National Assembly (NA), Auditor General, the Minister of Finance and the Attorney General.
Lawyer Hawa Sisay Sabally for the Plaintiffs argued that the National Assembly was wrong to have amended the estimates to allocate loan to themselves. She argued that the lawmakers lack the power to make such amendments.
“They usurped the powers of the President,” she said, as she relied on section 152 of the Constitution.
She argued that it is only the President, who has the power to give instruction to the Minister of Finance to make available and it is not for the Minister to prepare without any instruction.
The Senior Lawyer argued in considering what was presented before them, the lawmakers like all other institutions do not have any authority to amend their budget.
“The National Assembly cannot amend and create a new budget line that was not in the budget estimates,” she said.
She submitted that nothing stopped the National Assembly from negotiating with the Finance Minister with a view to come up with an appropriation bill rather than creating a new budget line in the estimates.
“They (the National Assembly) have no right to create a budget line. They consider and approve it. It is only the President, who can authorize such,” she said.
She relied on section 101 (4) of the Constitution and said for the National Assembly to be able to do that, they needed a statute to be able to carry out that exercise. She told the court that in The Gambia, all loans are regulated by statute.
She said the loan came by way of a motion by a member of the National Assembly which was supported by the majority of the members, adding it was not a unanimous decision which means there were members who opposed it.
“They adopted a procedure which was fundamentally flawed and which contravened the Constitution,” she said.
She submitted that the responsibilities of members of the National Assembly are provided for under section 112.
“What they did was inconsistent with section 112 (2) of the Constitution because what they did was not in the public interest,” she said.
She said as per section 47 of the Public Finance Act, it does not fall within the powers of the National Assembly to create their own budget line.
In responding to the Plaintiff’s Lawyer, Counsel Ida Drammeh said: “Where it is clear that the Minister of Finance made the amendment before the estimates are approved, there cannot be a complaint,” she said.
The Senior Lawyer said the Court cannot grant the Plaintiffs’ claims considering the principle of separation of powers in the Constitution.
“There is nothing wrong in the National Assembly approving the revolving loan scheme,” she said.
Lawyer Drammeh submitted that no amendment was done by the National Assembly contrary to what the plaintiffs’ case suggests.
“It was the Minister of Finance who actually amended the estimates,” Lawyer Drammeh said.
She said there is no basis for the complaint once it is proven that the Ministers of Finance made the amendment.
“The Plaintiffs misconceived what is contained in the estimates and the Appropriation Act,” she said.
She said the approved estimates make provision for “revolving loan scheme” which was appropriated in line with relevant laws.
She submitted that section 47 of the Public Finance Act (PFA) gives the Minister of Finance the power to extend a loan subject to criteria stated in that section particularly subsection 2.
“There was no amendment done by the National Assembly and that is why there is no document before this court showing such amendment,” Lawyer Drammeh said.
She cited section 97 and 100 of the Evidence Act which deal with production of document.
“This court does not have before it the motion and the court is invited to speculate what was said in that motion in order to consider the prayers in the suit,” Drammeh said.
She said the court cannot and ought not to make far reaching determination on issues like this one. She added that the Constitution entrenches the principle of separation of powers.
She relied on the provisions of Chapter 9 of the Public Finance Act including sections 151.
“It is clear that there is an Appropriation Act 2021 which includes D54.4 million,” she said.
She said by the action, the court is invited at this premature stage to prevent the President and authorities to carry out a responsibility provided for in the laws.
“I urge this honourable court to decline that invitation,” Drammeh said.
She relied on Standing Orders 82 (2), 86 (4) (5) and (6) as well as 86 (8) and (9). Also, she relied on section 101 (4) of the Constitution and section 47 of the Public Finance Act.
She said section 47 of the Public Finance Act does not say loan cannot be made available to the National Assembly.
She said the Plaintiffs have invited the court to speculate on whether section 106 of the Constitution was not complied with.
“The court ought not to act contrary to the principle of separation of powers,” she said.
She submitted that the National Assembly did not act in any way in breach of any applicable law.
Counsel Binga D for the Attorney General informed the Supreme Court that no law was violated by Parliamentarians in the allocation 54.4 million dalasi loan to themselves and staff of the National Assembly.
The head of civil litigation department at the Ministry of Justice said the two civil society groups that sued the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Auditor General and the Minister of Finance misconceived the laws governing the budget process.
He said when budget estimates are laid before the National Assembly, members may comment on it and they have the power to make proposals.
“The issue of the inclusion of D54.4 million into the budget estimate was as a result of a motion before the National Assembly. This was why the Minister of Finance amended the estimates to include it,” he said.
He added: “The National Assembly proposed and the Minister in his wisdom deemed it fit to include it in the budget line.”
He informed the apex court that the inclusion was not through the “back way,” adding it was done by way of introducing a motion which was accepted and supported by the majority.
“There is nothing in section 152 of the Constitution that is violated by the National Assembly when they proposed for the inclusion of their loan,” he said.
Binga said there are procedures to access loan, adding there are separate rules and procedure that bind them.
The Senior State Counsel said section 47 of the Public Finance Act does not apply on the revolving loan scheme and it is only applicable to the loans by the Government of The Gambia.
He submitted that the amendment of the proposed budget estimate was done in good fate and did not violate section 112 of the Constitution, adding it was meant for the entire staff of the National Assembly – not only lawmakers.
He argued that the case is misconceived and the court cannot look into the proceedings, actions and speeches of the National Assembly.
“This court lacks the jurisdiction to look into the proceedings of the National Assembly,” he said.
In his judgment on Tuesday, Justice Gibril Samega Janneh said the Constitution does not accord the National Assembly the power to create a new budget line in the estimates.
“The National Assembly cannot pass a resolution creating its own budget line. The National Assembly cannot initiate its own budget line,” he said.
He said the powers of the National Assembly are derived and limited by the Constitution; that all their actions must conform with the dictates of the Constitution.
Justice Janneh said the power to create new budget line is vested in the President which the National Assembly cannot do.
“Any motion or resolution seeking to create a new budget must be brought by the Executive and not the National Assembly,” Justice Janneh said.
He held that, as per section 101 subsection 4, which gives the National Assembly the power to approve estimates, they equally have the power to disapprove, but it does not mean to introduce a new budget line.
He said he does not think the loan scheme serve any good purpose considering the provisions of the Constitution. He said the action of the lawmakers by passing a resolution by a vote of majority allocating themselves 54.5 million dalasis as a loan scheme contravenes sections 152 and 155 of the Constitution as well as section 47 of the Public Finance Act.
He detailed that the Loan Scheme does not provide clarity as to the terms and conditions for the loans. He cited sections 155 of the Constitution and 47 of the Public Finance Act.
“It [the Loan Scheme] is therefore null and void,” he said.
He said a loan is not a gift and therefore, it has to be repaid and this is why sections 155 of the Constitution and 47 of the Public Finance Act provided safeguards. He highlighted that the provisions of the Audit Act as well as the Finance Act were not followed; adding section 14 of the Public Finance Act does not permit long term loans.
He held that any sum disbursed from the 54.4 million should be recovered forthwith, adding the way the Loan Scheme was introduced was improper. He struck out the 54.4 million dalasi from the sum allocated to the National Assembly. Now the National Assembly is left with D192,406,437.
Foroyaa will publish the detail judgment (including the reasoning of the court) whenever copies are available. |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11511 Posts |
Posted - 06 May 2021 : 15:53:45
|
NAMS REACT TO D54M LOAN BLUES
The Standard: MAY 6, 2021
By Tabora Bojang
https://standard.gm/nams-react-to-d54m-loan-blues0/
Various members of the National Assembly have expressed mixed feelings to the Supreme Court’s ruling against their proposed D54 million loan scheme.
In a landmark ruling on Monday, the apex court ruled that the constitution does not accord the National Assembly the power to create a new budget in the estimates, since any motion seeking to create a new budget line must be done by the executive and not the Assembly.
The court further declared as unconstitutional the lawmakers’ attempt to create the D54 million loan scheme for parliamentarians and staff of the Assembly and called for its retirement from the 2021 budget.
But while a few lawmakers welcomed the court ruling, several others expressed dismay at the decision.
Jarra East NAM, Sainey Touray said he received the decision with “mixed reactions” because he expected the court to “strike” out the case for lack of merit.
“I was definitely of the view that people who took the matter to the court have no case against us. I expected the court to dismiss it but on the contrary, my expectations were dashed,” Touray said.
He argued that the Supreme Court could have decided otherwise if it was guided by section 153 of the 1997 constitution.
“I have nothing to say but respect the verdict of the court because a lawmaker will always remain a lawmaker and not a lawbreaker,” he added.
The Member for Banjul South, Touma Njai congratulated the civil society for taking the matter to the Supreme Court, saying it is a demonstration that “our democracy is at work.”
“I have always been against these loan allocations from the onset because I don’t subscribe to personal gains while in office and I will not support any member [NAM] to enrich him or herself. We cannot create a budget line and do an oversight function on that same budget,” she said.
Touma added that her fellow NAMs could liaise with the Ministry of Finance and get them to create a budget line and then request the allocations.
Foday Drammeh, member for Tumana said even though he does not subscribe to the loan allocation, he is “disappointed” with the apex court’s decision to overturn it.
“I am disappointed because I was never with the notion that the court will overturn the scheme since lawmakers have powers to propose certain things in the budget. But again, this is the beauty of democracy; the court’s judgement has to be respected and it may well serve as a lesson for both the lawmakers and the public,” Drammeh said.
Minority Leader and Member for Niamina Dankunku, Samba Jallow said he is “very happy” with the decision of the Supreme Court.
“This shows that there is democracy working in our country. We represent the citizens and since they felt our decision was wrong and subsequently sought redress at the Supreme Court, which has powers to interpret the laws and they ruled in favour of the citizens that we represent, then I am happy with the ruling,” Jallow said.
Asked if the NAMs would apologise to Gambians for the “unlawful move,” Jallow replied: “No! No! I don’t think it needs an apology. When we were doing it, we did it with the right conscience and the right principle. We [NAMs] are bound to make errors and if the court declares it unconstitutional, I don’t think it warrants an apology.”
Central Baddibu NAM, Sulayman Saho reacted: “We have to respect the decision of the Supreme Court but I am not happy with their judgement because parliament can allocate and this is what we have done. I don’t think there is anything fundamentally wrong in what we did; maybe they could argue about the timing.”
He said the current parliament is only setting the precedence to ensure lawmakers are financially independent to serve their purpose.
“We are not stealing or begging but taking a loan we thought we could pay,” he added.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12237 Posts |
Posted - 07 May 2021 : 11:53:56
|
You may well agree with what has been written I could not possibly comment !
++++++++++
SNIPPET FROM THE POSTING ABOVE:
"Asked if the NAMs would apologise to Gambians for the “unlawful move,” Jallow replied: “No! No! I don’t think it needs an apology. When we were doing it, we did it with the right conscience and the right principle. We [NAMs] are bound to make errors and if the court declares it unconstitutional, I don’t think it warrants an apology.”
Central Baddibu NAM, Sulayman Saho reacted: “We have to respect the decision of the Supreme Court but I am not happy with their judgement because parliament can allocate and this is what we have done. I don’t think there is anything fundamentally wrong in what we did; maybe they could argue about the timing.”
He said the current parliament is only setting the precedence to ensure lawmakers are financially independent to serve their purpose.
“We are not stealing or begging but taking a loan we thought we could pay,” he added."
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
toubab1020
12237 Posts |
Posted - 12 May 2021 : 09:37:44
|
========
https://foroyaa.net/simple-things-should-not-be-made-complexthe-debate-on-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-54-4-million-dalsis-assembly-loan-scheme/
========
EDITORIAL May 10, 2021
It is important to take note that the Assembly did slice the budgets of other budgetary agencies with the expressed view that the budget deficit of the country needed to be reduced only to add 54.4 Million to the estimates which was never tabled by the executive.
It is incontrovertible that estimates of revenue and expenditure are connected with Appropriation Bills. An appropriation Bill is dependent on and determined by approved Estimates of revenue and expenditure.
The question now arises: Who prepares estimates?
Section 152 of the Constitution explains very clearly that the budgetary process starts with the preparation and laying of estimates before the National Assembly.
It reads:
(1) The President shall cause the Minister responsible for finance to prepare and lay before the National Assembly at least thirty days before the end of the financial year, estimates of the revenue and expenditure of The Gambia for the following financial year. The estimates shall include any estimates which, under this Constitution, are to be submitted directly to the President by the Chief Justice or any other authority for presentation by the President to the National Assembly.”
The estimates are so relevant to the Appropriation Bill that section 144 states the following with regards to the judiciary:
“(1) The Chief Justice shall submit the annual estimates of expenditure for the Judicature to the President for presentation to the National Assembly in accordance with this Constitution. The President shall cause the estimates to be placed before the National Assembly without amendment, but may attach to them his or her own comments and observations.”
It is therefore the executive that prepares estimates with the exception of those institutions excluded by the Constitution.
Does the National Assembly have any powers to introduce estimates of items that have not been submitted as part of its budgetary proposals? It does not.
Who then is to approve the estimates?
Section 152 A reads: “(1A) The National assembly shall, within fourteen days of the estimates being laid before it, give consideration to and approve the estimates.”
It is the National Assembly that approves the estimates.
If the National Assembly introduces an item and approves it, would that become legitimate by approving it? It was for the courts to decide.
What is the relation between an Appropriation Bill and an estimate?
Section 152 Subsection (2) reads:
“(3) When estimates of expenditure have been approved by the National Assembly, an Appropriation Bill shall be introduced in the National Assembly for the issue from the Consolidated Fund of the sums necessary to meet that expenditure (other than expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund), under separate votes for the several services required and for the purposes specified therein.”
(3A) The National Assembly shall, within seven days of the introduction of the Appropriation Bill, give consideration to and pass the bill. “
If the National Assembly passes an Appropriation Bill with an item that was put in the estimates and approved by the National Assembly would that make it legal?
It is for the supreme court to decide. Why?
Section 127 reads:
(1) The Supreme Court shall have an exclusive original jurisdiction –
(a) for the interpretation or enforcement of any provision of this Constitution other than any provision of sections 18 to 33 or section 36(5) (which relate to fundamental rights and freedoms);”
The Supreme court has decided that when a process starts from a faulty step it can never stand on a legal foundation. The law has been made through interpretation. Those with legal minds should concede and move on to avoid recurrence. Parliamentary impunity is alien to democracy and good governance. |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
NA Members approved 54m budget line for themselves
