The public needs relief, not rigid rules to restrict government measures

ATTORNEY GENERAL and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall, SC, has rejected the Opposition’s proposal to enshrine the Government’s cash grant scheme into law, calling it “absurd”.
During his weekly television show, Issues in the News, broadcast last Tuesday, Nandlall criticized the opposition’s position, calling it baseless and accusing it of trying to appropriate the cash grant initiative.
“The government’s decision to provide a cash grant to all Guyanese 18 years and above registered in our registration system initially attracted criticism, and when it was realized that the criticism was not founded, they were obviously unfounded, and (the) criticisms were rejected by the entire population.

“The opposition, rather than accepting that this is a good decision, has found all kinds of methods to obstruct it. They have found all kinds of methods to criticize the decision, while at the same time some of them are fighting for ownership of the decision,” Nandlall said.

He questioned the logic behind the opposition’s call for legislative support, a move championed by the reformist People’s National Congress (APNU), the Alliance for Change (AFC) and the Alliance of workers (WPA).

“As usual, it’s a confusing group. They are launching another sophisticated move: They want this now enshrined in law. I don’t understand, what are you doing in the legislation?
“But you know, calling for legislation is another sophisticated concept…apparently it seems intellectual and profound. This is the only reason why I could move forward,” argued the Attorney General.
The demand for legislation, according to Nandlall, reflects a poor understanding of how policies should work in a dynamic economic environment – ​​a “sophisticated” concept from the opposition without practical reasons.
Nandlall stressed the importance of flexibility, noting that several long-standing cash assistance initiatives have been managed without legislation.

“We have been giving out cash grants to schoolchildren…since 2010 or 2011, we haven’t had that in law. We give out uniform vouchers and uniform grants – we never put that into legislation. We have been providing subsidies to retirees for their electricity and water bills for over a decade now. We have not enshrined this in the legislation,” the AG stressed.
Nandlall explained the impossibility of legislating such subsidies due to the volatility of the global market.

“Why do you want to put this into law? Do you want to make it the law of the land? What will happen if next year we don’t get the money to pay?
“We do not make the law for the purpose of making the law, by putting in the law something which should not be the subject of laws. Laws must govern and regulate society. So you put it into law. The next year, for whatever reason, oil prices go down…and you’re not able to pay. So what happens: you violate your own law? »

As such, Nandlall highlighted the importance of flexibility within government policy, particularly for cash grants, which are highly dependent on current economic conditions.
“When we put this in the law, there is rigidity. There is no flexibility as the law will now dictate your policy. It is not possible to have a flexible policy, as is the case with cash grants which increase significantly every year. It’s not a law,” he said.

Highlighting the opposition’s support for legislation on “direct cash transfers”, he described it as an attempt to appear profound without addressing the real issues.
The recent government grant of $100,000 for every citizen aged 18 and over was introduced to ease the impact of the rising cost of living due to global economic pressures.

This approach was revised from an initial proposal of $200,000 per household after public comments, which highlighted concerns about fairness, particularly for young adults who are not heads of household .
“People will receive a cash grant. That’s what’s important and that’s what people want. They don’t want it to take the form of legislation,” he added.

Nandlall reiterated that government programs must remain responsive and adaptable to changing conditions.