ATTORNEY General, Anil Nandlall yesterday continued to present his arguments against the granting of a Conservatory Order which was applied for by lawyers for the Leader of the Opposition David Granger. Granger has requested the courts to stay all spending by Government pending the hearing into his legal challenge on the constitutionality of Government’s spending on programmes disapproved by the National Assembly in the 2014 budget.

The hearing, which commenced on January 2 before the acting Chief Justice Ian Chang, is being heard in chambers. Nandlall, who is representing the Minister of Finance, Dr Ashni Singh, one of the named respondents in the legal challenge, said his argument was that assuming the court has jurisdiction to grant the conservatory order, it should not, because the Minister had faithfully complied with the procedure outlined in Article 218:3 of the constitution.
That Article, he said, “allows the Minister of Finance to lay a statement of excess in the Parliament after expending money for which no appropriation has been made in the Appropriation Act of any given year and the Minister of Finance has faithfully complied with that procedure in the Constitution…he had done so in 2012 and 2013, in very similar, if not identical, circumstance, laid before the National Assembly, Statements of Excess and those Statements of Excess were approved by the very National Assembly in 2013 and 2012.”
Nandlall said that he pointed out that most of the money which would have been restored, if not all, has been expended, “therefore you cannot grant an order to restrain an act that has already been committed.”
The Attorney General further stated that Article 219:1 of the Constitution and Fiscal Management and Accountability Act provides that, “in any given financial year, a government is intended to spend money for the provision of services to the public to the tune of 1/12 of what constituted the budget for the year proceeding … until a new budget is passed.” Pointing out that 2014, the year for which the action was filed, has ended, and a new year has started, Nandlall opined “The case either has been overtaken by events or it is completely misconceived and unnecessary; there is no necessity to come to the court for a judge to say what the law says.”
Attorney at Law Basil Williams, who is representing the Leader of the Opposition, argued that the court has a right to review acts of the government and the legislature where there has been an allegation of breaches of the Constitution; in this case the Attorney General needs to show by what authority the government has engaged in the spending.
The Attorney General will continue his submission before the Chief Justice acting when the court resumes next Wednesday. He is expected to show on what services the government could spend pending the passage of an Appropriation Bill.
The other respondents in the action are the Attorney General, who is represented by Attorney at law Ashton Chase, and the Speaker of the National Assembly.