A LESSON FOR RICK?

  Rick: An average student in Tim’s Class?

Rick has apparently abandoned “Talk”; and instead, he has now become a regular caller to RCI’s "News Spin" - a programme he obviously would like to take in a certain direction. Today, he called in his usual authoritative tone "to bring the truth to light" on the violations of Sections 77 of the Constitution and 7 (1 &2) of the Finance (Administration) Act. Indeed he was excessively authoritative, perhaps to the point of even being authoritarian; but he was hardly an authority. We can safely say that he sounded like an average student in Tim’s class.

When Tim put it to Rick that “Shouldn’t the Taiwanese have observed the constitution and put the monies into the Consolidated Fund?”, Rick regrettably blurted: “The Chinese did it too!”

Dealing with monetary and non-monetary gifts

News Spinners – Tim included - have been educated ad nauseum by financial experts who call the News Spin programme on the application and operation of the Laws regarding the Consolidated Fund.  They have explained that gifts to a government or state can be monetary or non-monetary. For example, the George Odlum Stadium, the National Wellness Centre and the Factory Shells in Vieux Fort are all non-monetary gifts. The Chinese built them and then handed them over to the government and people of St. Lucia. No money was received or handled by the us.

China also gave St. Lucia monetary donations. They donated $100 million dollars for capital projects. They also donated moneys to the Poverty Reduction Fund for constituency development and poverty reduction projects.

The Taiwanese, on the contrary, give monetary donations to our Government Ministers and UWP candidates – not the government. 

The legal framework

Section 77 of the Constitution of Saint Lucia states: 

“All revenues or other moneys raised or received by Saint Lucia (not being revenues or other moneys that are payable, by or under any law for the time being in force in Saint Lucia, into some other fund established for specific purpose) shall be paid into and form a Consolidated Fund.”

Section 7 of the Finance (Administration) Act, Cap 15.01 also says:

(1) “Subject to the Constitution and except as otherwise provided in this Act, all revenues and other monies raised or received for the purposes of the Government, not being revenue or other monies which are payable by or under any enactment into some other fund established for a specific purpose, shall be paid into and form part of the Consolidated Fund.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) monies raised or received include monies received by way of a grant, donation, gift or other liked method.”

Interpretation

Hence, how did Rick arrive at the claim that the Chinese were equally guilty in the violation of our Constitution and Finance laws?  He has either not thoroughly understand the Law or he may have recklessly misunderstood it. and he is not alone.

Apparently, the conceptually challenging clauses in the relevant law are:

1)   the parenthetical clause in Section 77 of the Constitution, to wit, “not being revenues or other moneys that are payable, by or under any law for the time being in force in Saint Lucia, into some other fund established for specific purpose”  . . .

and

2)   the “antecedents” in Section 7 (1) to wit, “Subject to the Constitution and except as otherwise provided in this Act, all revenues and other monies raised or received for the purposes of the Government, not being revenue or other monies which are payable by or under any enactment into some other fund established for a specific purpose . . .

Both clauses are clear, consistent and point to the same thing. Section 77 of the Constitution explicitly "exempts" moneys payable under law into some other fund (which may include the Poverty reduction Fund, BNTF, Belfund or NCA) established for specific purpose. Section 7(1) explicitly says “Subject to the Constitution and except as otherwise provided in this Act”.

In other words, the “other fund” referenced in Section 77 of the Constitution and Section 7(1&2) of the Finance Act must be a fund established by law; that is, it must have been a creature of parliament.

Please, let's protect our laws and dignity

Can anyone cite any law which permits Parliamentarians or Village councils to bypass the consolidated fund? Can we cite any law which creates a fund that Parliamentarians or Village Councils to access? Rufus Bousquet implied that such a law exist, can he share it with us?

Indeed, the Taiwanese have the power to determine how their aid money is utilised; but they must also understand that it must be done within the framework of the law. We need the aid; but we also need to protect our laws and dignity! The government is setting a very precedent by not advising Mr Chou accordingly.