— Opposition refuses to file affidavit in answer
HEARING of Attorney General, Anil Nandlall’s Notice of Motion seeking to get parliamentary committees constituted to reflect parties’ seat allocation in Parliament will continue this coming Monday, despite Opposition Parliamentarians deciding not to file an affidavit in answer. The hearing began yesterday with Attorney-at-law, Basil Williams, representing Opposition Leader David Granger, and Attorney-at-law/Parliamentarian, Khemraj Ramjattan, representing other members, reporting that no affidavit in answer to the Motion will be filed.
Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang, SC, who had earlier given a preliminary ruling indicating that he had jurisdiction to enquire into the matter, had also suggested to the lawyers that they had a right to file or not to file an affidavit in answer.
He was setting out his plan for the rest of the hearing when Attorney-at-law, Mr. Ashton Chase, SC, appearing with Attorney General, Anil Nandlall for the Government, said he wished to address the court on Monday.
Chief Justice Chang then disclosed that the motion would be discussed on its merits, and fixed the next hearing for Monday.
Speaking to the press after the short hearing, Attorney General Anil Nandlall said:
“As you are aware, the court ruled that it has jurisdiction to enquire into the matter. The court, however, indicated that it has still yet to consider two procedural objections which were taken against the motion.
“Senior Counsel, Mr. Ashton Chase, who is appearing with me, will address the court… In addition to what I have said, he will also add to what I have said. It is our contention that there is nothing procedurally improper with the Notice of Motion.
“The judge has said that after that has been concluded, he would go to the merits of the motion, and that is what we are anxiously awaiting (him) to do. You will recall that he had granted an opportunity to the lawyers of the Leader of the Opposition to report on whether or not they would like to file an affidavit in answer to the Motion. They have indicated that they wanted some time to consult before they arrive at such a decision. Well, they have consulted, and they have reported to the court that they do not wish to file an affidavit in answer; and therefore, the next logical step — the next procedural step — is for us to begin our arguments on the merits of the motion. That will begin with my presentation of the motion, and for me to articulate the reasons and the law why I have been saying that the constitution has been violated and there was a breach of the constitution.”