BUDGET proceedings in the National Assembly are arranged, generally speaking, in five parts. First, the presentation of the budget by the Minister of Finance, followed by the debate, third is the item- by-item consideration of the 2026 estimates. The consideration process takes place in a committee of the entire Assembly or a committee of the whole, titled “The Committee of Supply”. In that committee, members of the opposition are able to interrogate every figure, line by line. Subject ministers or parliamentary secretaries provide justification and rationale. At this stage, any member (opposition or government) may move a motion to vary any of the estimates. Via a vote of the majority, line items can be completely removed, adjusted upwards or downwards or existing line items may be merged, split or new line items included.
At the fourth stage, the National Assembly is reconvened to receive a short report on the work of the committee together with a motion that the whole budget becomes law via an Appropriation Bill.
The fifth and final stage will be to pass amendments to any other law or regulation that gives effect to any adjustment impacted by the budget. For example, the income tax act may require adjustment to cater for changes in the personal income tax threshold or the customs act amended to allow for reduction in import duties on motor vehicles etc.
The finance minister presented the budget and the debate is over. I have some brief comments, and I will start with the positives. From first timers on the opposition side, promising presentations came from Saiku Andrews and Odessa Primus. All the others, including the opposition leader, can be lumped in one bundle and tagged, “they also spoke.” Saiku is noteworthy because he was the only new MP who attempted to provide alternatives. My admiration for his presentation is not necessarily how strong his rhetoric, eloquence or any agreement I may have with the actual arguments presented was, but his format. He attempted to lay out and deconstruct the government proposals, criticised it, then outlined what he believes to be superior alternatives. If more young MPs follow and build around this simple format, I believe the quality of their presentations will improve.
My admiration for Odessa Primus’ presentation is twofold. First, there was good adlibbing. She was quick-witted in responding to hecklers in real time, no doubt, her experience in theatre was brought to bear. The second positive aspect of her presentation was her direct appeal to an emotive aspect of life in Guyana that has no effective rebuttal.
As a people, we have really not done well at honouring many of our outstanding citizens who shaped our politics, arts, culture, business, sports, and education; many have gone unnoticed and unheralded. How do we explain that the man who authored, arranged, and performed “Not a Blade of Grass” has not been given any national memorial? Why is there no national memorialisation of the work of the Guyanese man who gave the world “Electric Avenue” and “Gimme Hope Johanna”? Given her struggle for democracy alongside Cheddie Jagan together with her years of service to law making, governance and politics, how do we explain the lack of national honour for Gail Teixeira, while she is alive? I don’t know of a national memorial bearing the name Janet Jagan, why?
Wisely, no government MP chose to rebut this aspect of Odessa’s presentation, they couldn’t, simply because there is absolutely no rebuttal. It is an awakening of the conscience of the nation and a call to action. Odessa is not by any means the only person to make this kind of advocacy. She benefitted from the heightened attention given to recent political events. She has done well to neatly frame an aspect of life in Guyana we can all rally around, regardless of political affiliation.
On the negative side, Terrence Campbell was the absolute worst presenter. He stood in a class of his own, aptly labelled ‘lowlife.’ The ‘busedown’, name calling, body shaming and generally uncoordinated, incoherent nature of his presentation is a disgrace to the quality of presentations that historically characterise parliamentary leaders of the PNC.
Campbell did not give any attention to the design flaw that led to the composition of the group of twelve or the design flaw that catapulted him to be parliamentary leader of the PNC or the design flaw in the structure of his presentation. He rather ceased upon an explanation by the government that there was an initial design flaw in the layout of the roadway in the vicinity of Haggs Bosh, which essentially is a dumpsite.
On a side note, I wonder if Campbell’s fascination with dumpsite had anything to do with where his political ambitions to become Leader of the PNC will end up at the next PNC congress.
Campbell used the opportunity to tell the nation that there is a design flaw in Priya Manikchand. Was this intended and limited only to further his personal ongoing adventures into body shaming the minister or was it an attempt to condemn all women or, was it a racially charged attack on the entire demographic from which she originates? Any one you pick will make Campbell a shameless nit-witted political troglodyte. The unintelligible nature of his presentation, confirms that he is a neophyte that lacks humility, is politically barren and naked. It is characterised by a level of incompetence which will hurt rather than help any serious efforts to restore the PNC. Campbell’s off-mic behavior was not only riotous; his gesticulations and display of rage was that of a deranged man possessed with some sort of unfamiliar spirit. Bishop Edghill may have ideas for political seance or exorcism.
For first timers on the governing side, Thandi McAlister is a standout. She clinically dealt with her political crossover status; completely obliterated criticisms of the sector she manages and presented the work and innovations the budget seeks to continue or implement. It was concise but comprehensive. Her subject minister was wise not to touch any of the subject matter she handled. The minister of Amerindian Affairs also stood out in her rebuttal and argumentation.
Among returning MPs on the opposition side, Sherod Duncan attempted a methodology that should be successful for future opposition debates. He essentially asked his listeners to take a snapshot of the budget and juxtapose it with a snapshot of the state of projects on the ground and highlighted instances where implementation is not as perfect as policymakers say it is. In the context of debates, this is a potent way to present material. I don’t think Duncan maximised the effect of the format nor did he necessarily stay on the facts, but he chose a debating format that can be effective.
On the government side, Gail Teixeira’s clinical presentation confirmed her legendary and veteran status and young people will do well to use it as a learning tool.
Health minister Frank Anthony brought the “putting people first” theme to life more than any other speaker. And of course, the finance minister clinically responded to the opposition leader and APNU’s shadow leader. There are lots more that could be said on instances of the debates but suffice it to say that overall, as a group this was history’s absolute weakest cohort of opposition MPs.
We heard of mountains of academic qualifications credited to each speaker including a quiver full of doctors, yet there was severe lack of intellectual depth and basic debating competence on display.
In this regard, the ministers with responsibilities for youth and education have their work cut out.
The quality of the debate was a strong signal that we urgently need an expansion in schools debating and elocution competitions, the resuscitation of the UG debating society, the widening of the catchment for national youth parliament along with funding for clubs such as toastmasters and other opportunities for critical thinking and constructive reasoning.