The government will continue to withdraw from the NRF in accordance with the law

-The Minister of Finance states virulently by repeating Terrence Cambell’s unfounded criticism

Below is a full statement issued by Dr. Ashni Singh, a senior minister at the Chancellery of the President responsible for finance and public service, on Sunday evening:

“I have not commented before the recent speeches of Terrence Campbell in the media regarding the Natural Resources Fund (NRF), being the opinion that Vice President Bharrat Jagoo has already comprehensively referred to the issues raised by Campbell.

However, my attention was drawn to the Campbell letter of January 25 “Stabroek News” (SN) together with the article in “Village Voice News” from the same day. References to me in the mentioned letter suggest that after the thorough training he received from the vice president, Campbell now needs something like a soft landing, which will allow him to keep his face. So it seems that he has now directed his eyes towards me, hoping for some form of engagement that will save his ego, or, which may even better, no engagement at all. Needless to say, I can not add much to what the Vice -President has already said.

Nevertheless, I will not refuse Campbell thanks to the kindness of my first and probably the last answer to some specific issues he raised.

First of all, he notes that specific projects are identified as financed from our climate income, but this is not done in the case of our oil income.
I will repeat what the vice -chairman has already said. As a rule, the Balkanization (or mortgage or allocation) of government income to finance specific initiatives or government projects is not considered recommended practice for various reasons documented in extensive, easily accessible literature. The recommended and much better alternative is to pay all government income from all sources to one consolidated fund from which all expenses are charged.

The entire constitutional and legal structure of financial management in Guyana is clear in this matter. The Constitution sets out the principle that all income or other cash collected or received by Gujana are paid into one consolidated fund. The Constitution also specifies in detail the rules for making payments from a consolidated fund, including the requirement of the Act on funds adopted by the parliament. The key elements of the budget management architecture in Guyana remained faithful to this constitutional principle, including the Act on budget management and responsibility, chapter 73:02 and the NRF 2021 Act.

This leads us to the question why specific projects are identified as financed from our climate income. The answer to this question is basically quite simple. In a world where the findings regarding the financing of climate -related activities are just born, this identification is necessary for Guyana to obtain such income. In other words, Guyana must show that income is used to finance expenses for adaptation to climate change and soothing it. Therefore, a practical and transparent solution has been developed, under which the funds are deposited in a consolidated fund and re -allocated to the implementation of identified initiatives in the field of adaptation and alleviating climate change, while all are fully included in the state budget and included in the parliamentary process budget.

The final and preferred solution remains to pay all the income of the sector of government and local government institutions, regardless of their source to the consolidated fund and covering all expenses with funds approved as part of the budget process. This is what the good practice of budget management recommends and this is what our constitutional and legal architecture is considering.

Secondly, Campbell criticizes the level of government withdrawal from the NRF, even moving to describe it as absurd and excessive. Campbell would be good if he remembered that the level of payments from the fund was a matter of law.

The NRF Act provides that the amount that can be withdrawn in any budget year is annually approved by the National Assembly within the limits specified by the transparent model contained in the Act. Regardless of Campbell’s personal views on what the level of withdrawal and ignoring the fact that he has not voluntarily presented any rigorous foundations for these views should be, the level of withdrawal is determined by law and approved every year by the democratically chosen parliament, to I will return this issue soon.
Finally, Campbell regrets the lack of detailed reports on the allocation of NRF funds.

To avoid doubts and provide greater brightness, I will repeat what has already been said elsewhere and should be completely clear.

After the National Assembly approved the amount to be withdrawn from the NRF in any budget year, this amount is transferred to the consolidated fund (usually in tranches during the year), which is a variable pool of fiscal means available for financing various policies, programs and projects with its reflection in the state budget. The national budget itself is considered in detail by the National Assembly in the process of assigning funds on the delivery Committee. After approval, the state budget is carried out. After the end of the budget year, financial statements are prepared, controlled and transferred to the National Assembly for detailed consideration by the Public Accounts Commission.

To sum up, all amounts allocated from the consolidated fund are subject to thorough control of ex ANTE and ex post. In addition, there are, of course, many other levels of NRF control, including the requirement to publish all influence in the Official Journal and reporting them to the National Assembly.

I promised above that I would return to the topic of the democratically chosen parliament.

I received information that Campbell briefly signaled interest in applying for an office elected as the founder of one of the newer political parties in 2018. Apparently he gave up his position at the beginning of 2019. If you believe in media reports, his resignation took place soon after the APN+ AFC called for his boycott companies, because he had the audacity to be associated with a political party other than their. Campbell himself admits that he has so far supported PNC/APN/AFC in all previous universal elections. According to reports, when Apn+AFC called for a boycott of its enterprises, he expressed his injury with the words “today my people stuck my knife in my back.”

The world today knows Campbell’s views on the NRF. He spoke very loudly on this subject. To a lesser extent, we know his views on the transfer of bonuses for signing a contract of $ 18 million (incidentally, the first influence of Guyana from oil income) from a consolidated fund, which she had in accordance with the law, considering that she was received before adopting the provisions establishing NRF. The attention was distracted by people considered “their own people” by Campbell. We are also less known to us about whether 33 is the majority in 65, which is also the subject of creative interpretation by those who are considered “his nation”. Similarly, we have no idea as to his views on the requirement of government resignation and conducting elections in three months of defeating him a vote of no confidence, which happened to people considered “own nation”, and not a long time ago. As far as I know, Campbell was much less open in these and similar matters, which had very obvious consequences for his moral authority.

Regardless of the above, I consider his withdrawal from competitive policy as the most dignified regrets and I urge him to consider this decision again. He would be the most opponent on opposite benches. I could add that the restrictions imposed by the hidden politician are far too restrictive for man about his abilities and evident taste for competitive policy and inappropriate. Until he leaves the relative comfort and safety of this wardrobe, unfortunately the slip -up, which he thinks, is only his own matter.