In response filed with High Court… Granger’s legal challenge dubbed ‘political propaganda’ – Court called on to refuse application
PPP/C MP Anil Nandlall
PPP/C MP Anil Nandlall

AN affidavit in answer to a legal challenge advanced by Opposition Leader, Brigadier (rt’d) David Granger was filed in the High Court, on Tuesday, by Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall.

Leader of the Opposition, David Granger
Leader of the Opposition, David Granger

The affidavit calls for the court to refuse the application, with an appropriate order for costs, given that the challenge is “wholly misconceived and erroneous” in law.
Through the challenge, made via an affidavit filed on December 11, Granger is calling for a Conservatory Order to stay all spending or any further spending by Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh, or any other Government minister, on programmes disapproved or not authorised by the National Assembly until the hearing and determination of the matter.

alt
Chief Justice (Ag) Ian Chang

FUTILE EXERCISE
The affidavit, signed by Dr. Singh, stated that, “The Application for a Conservatory Order will be overtaken by events by the time this application is ready for hearing and therefore it would be a futile exercise for this Honourable Court to consider, more so, grant it.”
Earlier this month President Donald Ramotar made it clear that Guyana will go to general and regional elections and indicated that a date could be named as early as New Year’s Day. His announcement of a move to general and regional elections comes after his November 18 invitation, via letter, to Leader of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), Brigadier (rt’d) David Granger, was rejected, following the November 10 prorogation of Parliament.
The affidavit also challenges the Court’s jurisdiction to grant the Conservatory Order. “The Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to grant the Conservatory Order which is being sought herein,” it said.
The document adds too that Granger’s Writ of Summons that was filed does not confirm with the Rules of the High Court, hence a call for it to be struck out.
Additionally, the affidavit stated that via Granger’s challenge the Court is being moved to “vary and reverse” its 2012 decision.
In January this year, Chang ruled that the National Assembly has no right to cut the National Budget. The Chief Justice handed down his decision in the High Court on January 29. In the Preliminary Ruling given in June 2012, the CJ had ruled that the National Assembly had a role to either approve or disapprove of the National Estimate, not to cut them.
The ruling followed a move by the Government of Guyana, which had taken the Opposition to court following the slashing of the 2012 National Budget by $20.8B, claiming it was unconstitutional.
“Accordingly, these proceedings constitute an abuse of the process of the Honourable Court,” the affidavit said.

POLITICAL PROPAGANDA
The affidavit charges too that Granger’s challenge is “political propaganda”, in addition to having no basis in fact or in law.
It also notes that the National Assembly is not unfamiliar with the use of a Statement of Excess as a means of restoring sums cut in the national budget.
To date, in the 10th Parliament, four Statements of Excess have been tabled, 58 per cent of which has been approved by the combined Opposition. The fourth statement of Excess, Financial Paper 1/2014, was tabled in the National Assembly on June 19 and will be considered by the House at the next sitting. It reflects spending from January 1, 2014 to June 16, 2014 to the tune of $4.6B – the reason for Granger’s legal challenge.
The affidavit says, “All moneys expended by the Government of Guyana for the year 2014 were done in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, lawfully and properly.
“I (the defendant) reject all or any allegations that the moneys which are the subject of Financial Paper No. 1 of 2014 were expended unlawfully or unconstitutionally….there is nothing unlawful, irregular, improper, illegal or unconstitutional in respect of or in relation to financial paper number 1 of 2014 and the expenditures which are set out and contained therein.”
The document makes it clear too that Article 218 of the Constitution does not confer a power of disapproval upon the National Assembly as is alleged thereof or at all; and when the National Assembly withheld its approval in respect of several programmes, those were not part of the Appropriation Act No. 10 of 2014.
Importantly too, the affidavit states that 2014 is almost at an end and in respect of the year 2015, pursuant to Article 219 of the Constitution, Parliament has made provisions under which, if the Appropriation Act in respect of any financial year has not come into operation by the beginning of that financial year.
As such, the Finance Minister may authorise the withdrawal of moneys from the Consolidate Fund for the purpose of meeting expenditure necessary to carry on the services of the Government of Guyana, until the expiration of four months from the beginning of the financial year or the coming into operations of the Act, whichever is earlier.

LEAVE GRANTED
The affidavit in answer was filed in line with an order by the Acting Chief Justice, Ian Chang.
Last Monday, Chang granted the Attorney General seven days leave to respond to Granger’s challenge.
According to Granger’s application, in which he is listed as the plaintiff, he is also seeking a declaration that the expenditures were “unconstitutional, ultra vires, null and void, unreasonable and in breach of the doctrine of the separation of powers.”
The Opposition Leader is calling too for the courts to pronounce on the constitutionality of the combined Opposition’s disapproval of sums in the 2014 Budget, as well as a declaration on the restoration of those monies by the Finance Minister.
Budget 2014 saw the slashing of $37.5B from the allocations of $220B by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC).
The Finance Minister, prior to the restoration of the sums cut from the Budget, noted that the Government would rely on the final ruling of Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang regarding budget cuts and subsequently restored the sums slashed, via a financial paper valued $4.6B.
The Attorney-General, last Monday, appeared before the Chief Justice, along with Attorneys-at-Law, Adrian Smith and Sasha Mahadeo, given that he was listed as a defendant in the matter.
The Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, and the Finance Minister were also listed as defendants in the matter. Nandlall appeared before the Chief Justice along with Senior Counsel, Ashton Chase, on behalf of the Minister of Finance.
Meanwhile, Granger’s application is being defended by Senior Counsel Rex McKay and Attorneys-at-Law Basil Williams, Hewley Griffith, Lawrence Harris, Michael Somersaul, Joseph Harmon, James Bond, Lewellyn John and Bettina Glasford.
The Acting Chief Justice also granted leave to one member of Granger’s legal team, Basil Williams, to subsequently respond to Nandlall within five days, if the need arises.
Additionally, the matter is expected to be heard in court on December 29, 2014.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.