2012 Budget-cut appeal…Attorney-General confident Chief Justice’s ruling will stand
THOUGH he’s the first to concede that the right to appeal decisions of the court is an enshrined right, he has no reason to doubt that Acting Chief Justice, Mr Ian Chang’s ruling on the 2012 Budget-cut will stand.
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs
“I am confident that the appeal will not succeed,” Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Mr Anil Nandlall told the Guyana Chronicle yesterday (Thursday) when asked how he felt the scales of justice will swing on the matter, but declined to comment further.
The Attorney-General is listed as a respondent in an appeal of Chang’s controversial 2012 Budget cut ruling. The Notice of Appeal against Chang’s decision was filed in February by Leader of the Alliance For Change (AFC), Mr Khemraj Ramjattan, who’s a lawyer by profession, on behalf of Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, who was listed as the appellant in the matter.
GROUNDS
The appeal was filed on six grounds, the first of which was that the judge erred when he ruled that the National Assembly and its Committee of Supply do not have the legal and constitutional majority to amend or reduce the Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana for any given year.
The second was that the judge erred when he ruled that Standing Orders, or rules of procedure of the National Assembly, which provide for the amendment and reduction of the Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana, are not procedural rules of law, nor are they written law, nor are they subsidiary legislation, within the meaning of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, such as can impact upon or have a significance on the purposeful construction of Article 218 of the Constitution.
The third ground was that the judge wrongly construed Articles 218 and 171 (2) (a) and (b) of the Constitution of Guyana, thereby resulting in a construction that effectively ousted the National Assembly’s right and power to amend or reduce the Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana for the purpose of charging said Estimates to the Consolidated Fund.
The judge, instead, ought to have properly and purposefully construed the said Articles, ensuring a construction thereof, which would have resulted in the National Assembly possessing that ‘incidental’ power and right to amend the said Estimates, in accordance with the text and context of the Constitution of Guyana.
Speaker Raphael Trotman
The fourth ground contends that the judge erred and overreached himself when he ruled that the amendment and reduction of the Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana for the year 2012 by the National Assembly, through its Committee of Supply, was an abrogation of the doctrine of separation of powers, and hence, unconstitutional, unlawful and void because the National Assembly by such reduction and amendment was encroaching on the function of the Executive as exercised by the Minister of Finance.
The fifth stated that the judge erred when, consequent upon his finding that the Committee of Supply of the National Assembly acted unconstitutionally and unlawfully in amending and reducing the Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana for the year 2012, he ruled that the Minister of Finance was at liberty to make advances/withdrawals from the Contingencies Fund pursuant to Article 220 of the Constitution, for the purpose of restoring funds as originally budgeted for in the said Estimates for 2012.
Further, the last ground contended that the judge erred and overreached himself when he ruled that the Court has a supervisory jurisdiction over the National Assembly and its Committee of Supply, when the said National Assembly and its Committee of Supply proceeds upon the process of considering and deciding on the Estimates of Revenues and Expenditures and, thereafter, charging those said Estimates to the Consolidated Fund.
QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
The Government of Guyana had taken the Opposition to court following the latter’s slashing of the 2012 National Budget by some $20.8B on the ground that it was in contravention of the laws of Guyana.
In January this year, Chang ruled that the National Assembly has no authority to cut the National Budget. He handed down his decision in the High Court on January 29. In a Preliminary Ruling in June 2012, Chang had ruled that the National Assembly had a role to either approve or disapprove of the National Estimate, not to cut them.
Following the ruling, Parliament Office issued a missive claiming that the ruling is an interpretation that would have far-reaching effects throughout the Commonwealth parliamentary systems and procedures.
According to the statement, the right of the National Assembly to approve, including the right to amend budgetary estimates, is a long established right.
“The Ruling of the Hon. Chief Justice, Mr. Ian Chang, C.C.H., S.C., of January 29, 2014, provides an interpretation of the Rules and Standing Orders of the National Assembly relative to their conformity with Constitution of Guyana,” Parliament Office said, adding:
“Article 171 of the Guyana Constitution is the same as those provisions in the Constitutions of all Commonwealth nations as the Standing Orders and Rules of the Parliaments of Commonwealth Nations.”
It further went on to say, “…the doctrine of the separation of powers is the foundation of Guyana’s, and all parliamentary democracies, which recognises that the rule of law must be respected and upheld. The principle of comity dictates that the three branches of government — the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial — are all separate and equal, and are to respect the rights and authority of each other.” The foregoing sentiments were reflected in the stated grounds for the appeal.
At the time of the massive budget cuts, the Speaker of the House had ruled in favour of the Opposition, on the basis that the National Assembly can amend the Budget by reducing expenditure.