ATTORNEY General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall said he finds it extremely odd that Leader of the Opposition David Granger appears to be very angry at being removed as a litigant in a court case. He was referring to the June 19 ruling by Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang in the Government of Guyana’s High Court challenge of the cutting of the 2012 National Budget. The most recent result coming out is that since Members of Parliament have immunity and cannot be sued, Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh and the Leader of the Opposition are therefore excluded from being a part of the case.
During a recent interview on the National Communications Network, the AG observed that most defendants around the world and in Guyana are happy when they are removed from any court proceedings because they no longer have to appear in court. Not so for the Opposition, he said.
 
ANGRY DEFENDANT
AG Nandlall who is representing the Government, stated that the ruling also indicated that according to the Constitution of Guyana, the Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman falls into a different category and remains as the sole defendant in the case.
“This is the first case when a defendant is removed from a litigation the defendant is angry. The Leader of the Opposition seemed to be very angry and seems to take great objection to the fact that he has been removed from the hearing,” AG Nandlall stated. He noted that this reaction is extremely strange, especially when the Opposition is of the opinion that the court has no jurisdiction to enquire into the conduct of the National Assembly, “…and therefore I am wrong to take them to court. Now when they are removed from the court proceedings they are still objecting. So they are objecting to being sued and when they are removed from the suit they object to that as well.”
The High Court case began on June 7, 2012 with Government’s application to the Supreme Court for an Interim Order to allow the Minister of Finance to access the money cut from the National Budget.
On July 18, 2012 in a Preliminary ruling, the Chief Justice stated that the National Assembly has no power under the constitution to reduce the National Estimates when they are presented for approval. The ruling stated that in relation to the National Estimates, the National Assembly “performs a gate-keeping function, a power of disapproval is not contemplated by the Constitution.”
The AG explained that the basis of the court case has to do with whether the National Assembly, either in the Committee of Supply or in the outer assembly, has the power to reduce the estimates presented by the Finance Minister.
 
QUESTION OF LAW
In the 2012 budget case, two motions were made, one by Carl Greenidge, one by Khemraj Ramjattan, in the Committee of Supply, to effect certain reductions to the estimates presented by Minister Singh, and they were both passed. As a result, more than $20 billion were taken out of the 2012 budget and we went to court for that. The preliminary ruling was rendered, the AG said.
At that stage, he explained, no one disputed the facts, because there were no facts to be disputed. “It’s a pure question of law, no one can dispute that the budget was cut, no one can dispute that Mr. Ramjattan and Mr. Greenidge cut the budget. These are matters of public notoriety and recorded in the Hansard (Parliamentary records) and televised live; and understandably no one is willing to dispute those facts,” he stated.
The AG said, having received an exhaustive ruling from the court, “I thought that was the end of the matter. Because it is basic law, basic common sense, that a ruling from a court, on matters of law, whether it is preliminary or it is final, is conclusive of the matter that it decides upon, at least unless and until that preliminary ruling is set aside. So honestly I thought that that brought closure, because a final ruling is not materially far from a preliminary ruling.”
He pointed out, however, that unfortunately when the 2013 budget came around the issue assumed importance again. “These two very actors, Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan and Mr. Carl Greenidge again moved motions and again cut the budget, though we had long arguments. The CJ’s ruling was presented, long parts of it quoted at length by me,” he said.
“Nevertheless, Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman surprisingly said that it was a preliminary ruling, and made a very curious statement that parliamentary process is beyond review by the court. The opposition members who spoke on this matter were less diplomatic, they said since it was a preliminary ruling, therefore they are not bound, hence arose the need to go back to the court for a final ruling,” the AG stated. He also pointed out that the Opposition itself on several occasions called for the final ruling to be made.
“So I wrote to the judge and I said please resurrect this case and let us have a final ruling. That was done and that’s where we are.”
 
NO FACTUAL DISPUTES
AG Nandlall further said that each time the case was called, “one reason after another is presented whose ultimate objective is to delay and detain the matter from going forward. They (the Opposition lawyers) said that they want to cross examine Dr. (Roger) Luncheon. As I said, from the beginning, this is not a case where there are any disputes of law…The questions of law would remain the very questions of law which we argued at the interlocutory stage, because nothing has changed… they raised an objection, they want evidence,” he explained.
“Of course I explained at length that there is no need for evidence, you only need evidence if you have factual disputes. There are no factual disputes here just a question of law. Can you cut the budget? It’s as simple as that. They said no, they want to cross examine Dr. Luncheon.”
The AG explained that Dr. Luncheon swore to an affidavit at the interlocutory stage of the case, outlining the consequences that would flow if the sum of money cut out of the budget was not restored.
Among those consequences would be that “ hundreds of persons are going to be dismissed; that several state and government agencies whose funding had been cut, may have to be closed down;  that constitutional authorities or agencies that the constitution has created will have to shut operations down because of the lack of funding. Those are the matters that Dr. Luncheon swore to in an affidavit. The budget cuts were restored after the preliminary hearing. Those issues are no longer relevant, they were relevant at the interlocutory stage and they are not relevant now.”
 
He further explained that since Dr. Luncheon is not a Member of Parliament, he could not speak on what transpired in the House, “and therefore a request to have Dr. Luncheon cross examined is one that is simply ridiculous. It is not based on law, certainly not based on commonsense, because to cross examine persons is immaterial to the determination of a legal issue. What question can you ask Dr. Luncheon that would help the court to determine whether the parliament has the power to cut the budget or not? What answer can he give which would confer a power upon the Opposition to cut the budget which the constitution or the law do not give them or deprive them of such a power which they have? Whether the National Assembly has the power to cut the budget or not is a question of law. You have to look at the Constitution, look at the powers of the National Assembly, and see whether they have that power. Dr. Luncheon nor any other witness can assist in the determination of that issue. So the request to have Dr. Luncheon cross examined is an absurdity, and one that is designed to further delay the matter, and so I argued vehemently against that request.”
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Fortunately, the AG noted, the Speaker’s lawyer who insists on a final ruling being given has agreed for himself and the AG to submit a statement of agreed facts and to proceed to arguments.
The statement of facts is simply a recitation of what happened in parliament in April/May 2012: that Dr. Singh presented the national budget, that the budget was debated, that the assembly moved into Committee of Supply to consider the estimates, in the Committee of Supply two motions were made, one by Greenidge, one by Ramjattan, and X amount of money was cut out of the budget, and that was reported when the Committee of Supply concluded its business. The Minister of Finance then reported to the House of the Assembly what transpired in the Committee of Supply and the budget that was amended in the Committee of Supply is now this, and moved that the budget be passed.
The court hearing continues on July 5 when the agreed Statement of Facts is to be presented and arguments should commence on the question of the law: Does the National Assembly have the power to cut the national estimates as presented by the Minister of Finance? (GINA)