IDPADA-G’s case over subvention frivolous, vexatious – AG

…maintains organisation “misused” Govt funding

Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister, Anil Nandlall, SC, has asked acting Chief Justice Roxane George, SC, to put a stop to what he has deemed “vexatious and frivolous” litigation filed by the International Decade for People of African Descent Assembly-Guyana (IDPADA-G) over the Government’s decision to stop funding that organisation.

The Government’s case is that it stopped providing IDPADA-G with the $8M monthly subvention after numerous persons complained that although they are qualified for assistance from IDPADA-G, a limited liability company, they have been wrongly excluded and deprived of same.
Last December, the organisation filed judicial review proceedings over the Government’s refusal to pay the monthly subsidy.  In court filings, the IDPADA-G said that the discontinuation of funding had, among other things, forced it to lay off staff and halt its planned activities.
There had been a public spat between the Government and the IDPADA-G over several months with the Government accusing the body of mismanaging its funds.
The IDPADA-G has rejected Government’s claims and is contending that there is a legitimate expectation, given the money was granted by the Government based on an undertaking, in the form of an annual subvention paid monthly which began under the APNU/AFC Administration pursuant to a promise by former President David Granger.
By withholding the monies, the IDPADA-G has argued, the Government has broken its legitimate expectation; therefore, the organisation is entitled to the intervention of the court on the violation of this legitimate expectation and for a breach of contract.
According to the organisation, the withdrawal of funding is an abuse of power; is unlawful and without basis; and it was not given notice of the withdrawal, nor was it allowed by the Government to be heard regarding changing the decision.
But the Attorney General, on behalf of the Government, has contended that IDPADA-G’s case is frivolous and vexatious and should be dismissed with costs.
He said the Government has resolutely maintained that Granger’s representation related to the Government’s support for activities associated with the implementation of the International Decade for the People of African Descent in respect of the United Nations Resolution dated December 23, 2013, was not made to IDPADA-G or any specific organisation.

“In the circumstances, when President Granger’s speech in 2016 is carefully examined, there was no promise of any subvention made to the Applicant [IDPADA-G] nor any organisation, and therefore, insofar as the Applicant’s case is grounded in this promise as the foundation for the doctrine of legitimate expectation, it must fail. The Applicant was not even in existence in 2016, having been incorporated in September 2019,” Nandlall pointed out.
While successive Governments have pledged their commitment to funding the organisation with this position being publicly stated from 2016-2023, the Attorney General said that this matter has become unclear because IDPADA-G has managed, in its narrative, to monopolise the financial benefits flowing from this pledge, and now claims it as its exclusive entitlement.
Moreover, Nandlall submitted that what a Government decides to include in its budget and appropriates, and to whom monies are disbursed under that Appropriation Act, are all matters within the constitutional right and freedom of a Government.
Legitimate expectation must necessarily fall away, a fortiori, at the might of the Constitution, as it does in the face of ordinary legislation, he argued.
He added, “Public interest will eschew the continuing budgeting, appropriation, and disbursement of public monies to an organisation facing the type and volume of criticisms with which the Applicant is burdened. The rule of law and public interest aggregate to demand that public monies be dealt with a greater degree of fiscal care, prudence, and responsibility.”
IDPADA-G’s lawyer, Dr Vivian Williams, on the other hand, submitted that there is no evidence to support that the funds disbursed to the organisation were used for a purpose other than what was stated in the work plan submitted to the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport.
While perusing the evidence, Justice George said she observed that the financial statements tendered by IDPADA-G show that the body was utilising a large portion of the subvention to pay employees while only a “minuscule” sum was being pumped into projects.
In reply, Williams sought to clarify that at the time the work plan was submitted, IDPADA-G did not factor in the costs associated with adequately compensating human resources, rental of a building for its headquarters, and travel expenses, among other things.
The IDPADA-G, chaired by Opposition-nominated Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Commissioner Vincent Alexander, is ultimately seeking a court order to have the subvention reinstated as well as damages. The Chief Justice is expected to rule on the case soon.
The Chief Justice had previously described the dispute over the monies as a “national embarrassment” and had urged the matters to consider mediation; however, settlement talks had broken down irretrievably and the matter went back to her for trial.
In April, the Government reported that it would bypass IDPADA-G and disburse the 2023 subvention to 55 organisations representing Afro-Guyanese across the country, who are the founding members of that organisation, to pursue the objectives of the decade, 2015–2024.
According to court documents, in 2018, IDPADA-G received a subvention of $68,438,000; $100,000,000 in 2019; $107,223,607 in 2020; $100M in 2021, and $66,666,672 as of August 2022. Another $100M was set aside in the 2023 National Budget for the organisation. (G1)