The minority in parliament has cautioned the House against what it describes as “bad precedent” on the part of the government to present the mid-year review as a statement instead of a motion.
According to the Minority Leader, Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, who raised the concern even before the Minister for Finance was invited by the Speaker, the development was against Section 28 of the Public Financial Management Act.
He cited that the 2023 budget was prepared with no assumption of an increase in wages and salaries, but subsequently, it happened.
Also, he indicated that the 2023 budget was approved without a debt restructuring, but it has happened, adding that the minister needed the consent of Parliament.
“If the minister responsible for finance is varying even expenditure line downwards, there will be the need for Parliament to approve it. Mr. Speaker, in case we know for a fact that the [2023] budget was prepared with the assumption that the government was not going to increase wages and salaries, subsequently, the government increased wages and salaries. That clearly means that in the mid-year budget review that the minister is presenting today, there will be an increase in the compensation line,” Ato claimed.
He continued, “Mr. Speaker, he (the Finance Minister) cannot do it unilaterally. Parliament will need to give him permission to spend that money. That is why he should not come to us (the Parliament) with a statement. He should come to us in the form of a motion in line with Section 28 of the PFM Act. Mr. Speaker, let them do the right thing.”
Meanwhile, the Speaker, in his ruling, found no fault with the minister for finance presenting the review in the form of a statement instead of a motion.
He read Section 28 of the PFM Act and concluded that the minister could go ahead with the statement.
