It was more than  surprising when  Basil Williams, Chairman of the A Partnership

For National Unity(APNU), Member of Parliament, and Shadow Minister of Legal Affairs, said that his party was not interested in an urgent judicial conclusion of the 2012 budget cuts case. One may recall the Honourable Attorney General describing such an  position as “astonishing”, and further summing up what can be described as an unnatural stance, as delaying tactics.
It could have only been described as a mysterious development, apart from being violently shocking, as it was insane. Further, it had to be  incredulous, that the main opposition party in conjunction with the Alliance For Change(AFC), after inflicting another of its unconstitutional cuts on the estimates , would not want to have a final ruling on an issue that is so pivotal to the well-being of the nation and its social and economic development.
For all the clamour and expectation of a final ruling by this  particular party, one would have expected its legal team submitting final arguments on its behalf, for a legal settlement.
Since then, the matter has been re-started, but with the chief justice ruling that neither Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh from the Government, nor APNU’s David Granger be part of the case. In other words, they are excluded, because of parliamentary immunity. This has exacted a response from  Granger’s team that has since filed an appeal, which the chief justice has consented to hear.
It is even doubtful that such an appeal is not contrary as a legal precedent, since according to the Attorney General, “he has never heard of an appeal being filed against a court order removing a defendant from a case”. Surely, those legal advisors to the Leader of the Opposition must be aware of this rule. But this latest manoeuvre is yet another strategy of delay, on their part.
Both these actions, the first in the form of that strange and inexplicable statement by Williams, and the appeal by Granger, are akin to playing Russian roulette with the Constitution. How can this major opposition party defend this latest, definitely time-wasting tactic, that is definitely a strategy to postpone a decision that will further condemn them in the eyes of the  Guyanese  people? Examining this case holistically, by its own logic, this opposition party defended its constitutional illegality of reduction of Budget 2013, by presenting that the Chief Justice’s initial ruling is an interim one. This was a position that the Honourable Speaker, Mr. Raphael Trotman, definitely supported when he ruled that the parliamentary Opposition could proceed in such a direction, until a final judicial ruling. It is obvious, that he, like the executive, is amazed; for according to his counsel, Mr. Khemraj   Ramjattan, also leader of the Alliance For Change(AFC), he had requested a final ruling.
Why the further delay, Mr. Granger?