
See below the full statement from Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh, issued by the Ministry of Finance:
I have not previously commented on Terrence Campbell’s recent forays in the media on the matter of the Natural Resource Fund (NRF), being of the view that Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo has already and comprehensively addressed the issues Campbell has raised.
However, Campbell’s letter in the January 25th issue of the Stabroek News (SN) has been brought to my notice, along with an article in the Village Voice News of the same day. The references he makes to me in the said letter suggests that, after the thorough schooling he received from the Vice-President, Campbell now needs a face–saving or soft-landing of some sorts. So, it appears he has now turned his gaze in my direction hoping for some form of engagement to salve his ego or, perhaps even better yet, no engagement at all. Needless to say, there is little that I can add to what the Vice-President has already said.
Nevertheless, I will not deny Campbell the courtesy of this, my first and likely final, response to some of the specific issues he has raised.
First, he makes the point that specific projects are identified as being financed by our climate revenue but that the same is not done in the case of our oil revenue.
I will restate what the Vice-President has already said. As a general rule, balkanisation (or hypothecation or earmarking) of government revenue to finance specific government initiatives or projects is not considered recommended practice for a variety of reasons documented in a substantial literature that is readily available. The recommended and vastly superior alternative is payment of all government revenues from all sources into a single consolidated fund from which all expenditure is appropriated.
The entire constitutional and legal architecture for fiscal management in Guyana is clear on this question. The Constitution establishes the principle that all revenues or other money raised or received by Guyana be paid into one Consolidated Fund. The Constitution also details the arrangements under which withdrawals may be made from the Consolidated Fund, including the requirement of an Appropriation Act passed by Parliament. Key elements of Guyana’s fiscal management architecture have remained faithful to this constitutional principle, including the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act, Cap. 73:02, and the NRF Act 2021.
This brings us to the question of why specific projects are identified as being financed by our climate revenues. The answer to this question is, in fact, quite simple. In a world where climate financing arrangements are still very nascent, this identification is necessary in order for Guyana to be able to earn these revenues. In other words, Guyana needs to demonstrate that the revenues are being used to finance climate adaptation and mitigation expenditure. Hence, a practical and transparent solution is developed where the funds are deposited into the Consolidated Fund and appropriated back out to meet identified climate adaptation and mitigation initiatives, all fully incorporated into the national budget and considered in the parliamentary budgetary process.
The ultimate and preferred solution remains for all government revenues irrespective of source to be deposited into the Consolidated Fund and for all expenditure to be met by appropriations approved as part of the budgetary process. This is what is recommended by good fiscal
management practice and this is what our constitutional and legal architecture contemplates.
Second, Campbell criticises the Government’s level of withdrawal from the NRF, going so far as to describe it as ridiculous and excessive.
Campbell would be well advised to remind himself that the level of withdrawal from the Fund is a matter of law. The NRF Act stipulates that the amount that may be withdrawn in any fiscal year is approved annually by the National Assembly within a ceiling that is defined by a transparent formula contained in the Act. Irrespective of Campbell’s personal views on what the level of withdrawal should be, and ignoring for the moment the fact that he has volunteered absolutely no rigorous basis whatsoever for these views, the level of withdrawal is determined by law and is approved annually by a democratically elected Parliament, a matter I will return to shortly.
Finally, Campbell laments the absence of detailed reporting on how NRF funds are allocated.
For the avoidance of doubt and an abundance of clarity, I will restate what has already been said elsewhere and should by now be patently clear. Once the National Assembly approves the amount to be withdrawn from the NRF in any fiscal year, that amount is transferred to the Consolidated Fund (typically in tranches over the course of the year), which constitutes the fungible pool of fiscal resources available to finance the various policies, programmes, and projects reflected in the national budget. The national budget is itself considered in detail by the National Assembly through the appropriations process in the Committee of Supply. When approved, the national budget is implemented. After the end of the fiscal year, financial reports are produced, audited, and submitted to the National Assembly to be examined in detail by the Public Accounts Committee. In summary, therefore, there is both robust ex ante and ex post scrutiny of all sums appropriated from the Consolidated Fund. Beyond this, there are of course multiple other layers of scrutiny of the NRF, including the requirement to publish all receipts in the Official Gazette and report them to the National Assembly.
I promised above to return to the subject of the democratically elected Parliament.
I am advised that Campbell briefly signalled an interest in contesting for elected office as a founder of one of the newer political parties in 2018. Apparently, he resigned early in 2019. If media reports are to be believed, his resignation came shortly after APNU/AFC called for his businesses to be boycotted because he had the audacity to associate with a political party other than theirs. By Campbell’s own admission, he had hitherto supported the PNC/APNU/AFC in every previous general election. It is reported that, when APNU/AFC called for the boycott of his businesses, he expressed his hurt with the words “today a knife was stuck into my back by my own people”.
The world knows Campbell’s views on the NRF today. On that, he has been very vocal. We are less apprised of his views on the signing bonus of US$18 million (Guyana’s very first receipt of oil revenue, incidentally) being diverted from the Consolidated Fund where it lawfully belonged given that it was received prior to enactment of legislation establishing the NRF. That diversion was perpetrated by those believed to be Campbell’s “own people”. We are also less aware of his views on whether 33 is a majority in 65, also the subject of creative interpretation by those believed to be his “own people”. Similarly, we are clueless as to his views on the constitutionally enshrined requirement for a government to resign and hold elections within three months of being defeated by a vote of no confidence, a fate that befell those believed to be his “own people” not so long ago. As far as I am aware, Campbell has been considerably less forthcoming on these and similar matters, with very obvious implications for his moral authority.
All of the above notwithstanding, I consider his withdrawal from competitive politics most regrettable and would urge him to reconsider. He would have been a most worthy opponent on the opposite benches. I might add that the confines of a closet politician are far too restrictive for, and most unbecoming of, a man of his ability and evident affinity for the cut and thrust of competitive politics. Unless and until he exits the relative comfort and safety of that closet, regrettably, the slip that he believes is showing is entirely his own.