Dear Editor,
I write to invite urgent public scrutiny of a Financial Paper recently laid in the National Assembly, which disclosed that a sum of $18.8 billion was expended from the Contingency Fund between November 18, 2025 and December 16, 2025.
The Contingency Fund is not an ordinary source of financing. 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). Any withdrawal therefrom must therefore satisfy strict constitutional and statutory criteria.
Article 220(1) of the Constitution provides that the Contingency Fund exists to meet urgent, unavoidable, and unforeseen expenditure for which no provision exists or is insufficient in the current Appropriation Act. Further, Article 220(2) mandates that all sums so advanced must be laid before the National Assembly as soon as practicable for approval.
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.
While there may be brief explanations outlining the general purpose of the sums allocated across various ministries, it is my hope that Opposition Members of Parliament will scrutinize each item of expenditure in detail, as is their constitutional duty. Equally important, the Speaker of the National Assembly must not cap or curtail legitimate questioning, especially where Members are seeking proper and reasonable explanations in order to account for the expenditure of taxpayers’ money. Robust scrutiny is not obstruction; it is a fundamental pillar of parliamentary democracy and fiscal accountability.
Against this legal backdrop, several critical questions arise. First, what specific activities or programmes accounted for the $18.8 billion expenditure during the stated period? Second, in what manner were these expenditures unforeseen, given that the period falls well within a fiscal year for which a national budget had already been approved by the National Assembly? Third, what evidence exists that these expenditures were both urgent and unavoidable, rather than matters that could reasonably have been addressed through supplementary estimates or other lawful budgetary mechanisms?
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. The National Assembly’s authority over public expenditure is a cornerstone of constitutional governance and must be respected.
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. Absent such clarity, serious concerns arise regarding legality, transparency, and accountability in the management of public finances.
Yours truly,
Annette Ferguson
