Former Minister and ex-Parliamentarian Annette Ferguson has called for urgent public and parliamentary scrutiny following the disclosure that $18.8 billion was withdrawn from Guyana’s Contingency Fund between November 18, 2025 and December 16, 2025.
In a letter to the editor, Ferguson, who served in the former A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) administration, referenced a Financial Paper recently laid in the National Assembly which detailed the expenditure. Her comments came after Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh presented the 2026 National Budget in the National Assembly on Monday, January 26, 2026, under the theme “Putting People First.” The theme mirrors the APNU’s 2025 elections campaign slogan.
Ferguson emphasised that the Contingency Fund is governed by strict constitutional and statutory rules and is not intended to function as a routine source of financing.
“The Contingency Fund is not an ordinary source of financing,” Ferguson wrote. “Its purpose, scope, and use are clearly circumscribed by both the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana and the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act (FMMA).”
She cited Article 220(1) of the Constitution, which states that the Contingency Fund may only be used to meet “urgent, unavoidable, and unforeseen expenditure” for which no provision exists, or is insufficient, in the current Appropriation Act. Article 220(2), she noted, further requires that all such advances be laid before the National Assembly “as soon as practicable” for approval.
According to Ferguson, the FMMA reinforces these constitutional safeguards. “The FMMA, particularly Sections 41 and 42, reinforces this constitutional framework by requiring that withdrawals from the Contingency Fund be limited to expenditure that is urgent, unavoidable, and unforeseen at the time the annual budget was approved,” she stated.
While acknowledging that brief explanations may have been provided for the allocations across various ministries, Ferguson urged Opposition Members of Parliament to scrutinize each item carefully. She also warned against limiting debate on the issue.
“It is my hope that Opposition Members of Parliament will scrutinise each item of expenditure in detail, as is their constitutional duty,” Ferguson wrote. “Equally important, the Speaker of the National Assembly must not cap or curtail legitimate questioning.”
She stressed that parliamentary scrutiny should not be mischaracterised as obstruction. “Robust scrutiny is not obstruction; it is a fundamental pillar of parliamentary democracy and fiscal accountability,” she said.
Ferguson raised several questions regarding the $18.8 billion expenditure, including what specific activities or programmes accounted for the spending, how the expenditures could be deemed unforeseen given that they occurred within a fiscal year for which a national budget had already been approved, and whether the expenditures were truly urgent and unavoidable.
“The public is entitled to know whether the Contingency Fund is being used strictly for its intended purpose, or whether it is increasingly being treated as a parallel financing mechanism that weakens parliamentary oversight,” Ferguson wrote.
She concluded by calling on Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh to provide a clear justification for the withdrawals. “It is therefore incumbent on the Minister of Finance to clearly demonstrate how the expenditure of $18.8 billion from the Contingency Fund satisfied the constitutional and statutory thresholds set out in Article 220 of the Constitution and the FMMA,” Ferguson stated, adding that without such clarity, “serious concerns arise regarding legality, transparency, and accountability in the management of public finances.”
