ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Anil Nandlall on Friday began arguments in the High Court in the matter of Opposition Leader, David Granger versus Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni K. Singh, the Attorney General, & Speaker Raphael Trotman, for alleged overspending Government’s money.

The AG began his submissions with the contention that ‘None of the articles touch & concern the fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution’.
He submitted that it was a civil proceeding commenced by writ of summons, and declared that the Orders sought do not relate to fundamental rights.

Because it was a civil proceeding and not a constitutional action founded in fundamental rights provisions, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant the Conservatory Order, Nandlall contended.

Under the State Liability Act, the Court cannot grant injunctions or any order against an officer of State if effect is to give relief against the State. One cannot command or mandate the State to do anything in such circumstances, he argued.

According to the A.G, the writ names Dr. A. K. Singh in his capacity as Minister of Finance, and Trotman in his capacity as Speaker (though he does not represent him), but in any event, a Minister cannot be sued in his official capacity.

Mr. David Granger, in his affidavit in reply, said: “As to paragraph 21, I am advised by Mr. Rex Mc Kay, S.C., and verily believe, that the averments therein are opaque and vague, as the events are not disclosed.

“Additionally, this action involves the interpretation of provisions which cannot be overtaken. The Attorney General’s averments are therefore misconceived and erroneous in law.

Mr. Granger’s legal representatives include Mr. Rex Mc Kay, S. C.; Mr. Basil Williams, Mr. Llewellyn John, and Ms. Bettina Glasford, all attorneys-at-law.
With the Attorney General on Friday was State Counsel Miss Sasha Mahadeo of the Attorney General’s Chambers.

The matter has been adjourned to Wednesday, January 14, at 1pm.
Written By George Barclay