<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">Chief Justice Ian Chang a short while a ago submitted his ruling which was in favour of the Government's position that the opposition's 2012 BuDget cuts were unconstitutional..........more in a short while</h6>
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share on Pinterest
- Share on LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit
- Copy Link to Topic
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Former Member
Democracy triumphs.........lets hear them demonize the acting CJ
Former Member
The court has ordered the Finance Minister to replenish monies cut from all agencies
Former Member
The Guyanese Populace now seems the failed attempt by APNU/AFC was a direct attack on the working class, aimed at placing hundreds directly on the breadline, shame on AFC/APNU
Former Member
lets wait to see the ruling since it has to involve some contingent circumstance. The judge cannot simply rule that de facto the law is the Admin can ignore the legislature on budget matters.
Former Member
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">OPPOSITION & THEIR MOUTH-PIECES MISREPRESENTING CJ RULING!!
AG Nandall just confirmed that Chief Justice deemed the Opposition 2012 Budget cuts as unconstitutional. The Finance Minister also has power to restore funds. The ERC draws down directly from the consolidated fund so he had to make an extra order to ensure the monies are available to them. We have prevailed, we have been vindicated. Fight the opposition elements, they are trying to misrepresent the facts of the CJ's ruling. AG Nandalall and FM Ashni Singh will be live on NCN tonight from 8pm to provide more details on ruling.</h6>
AG Nandall just confirmed that Chief Justice deemed the Opposition 2012 Budget cuts as unconstitutional. The Finance Minister also has power to restore funds. The ERC draws down directly from the consolidated fund so he had to make an extra order to ensure the monies are available to them. We have prevailed, we have been vindicated. Fight the opposition elements, they are trying to misrepresent the facts of the CJ's ruling. AG Nandalall and FM Ashni Singh will be live on NCN tonight from 8pm to provide more details on ruling.</h6>
Former Member
BIG LIE!!!
Y'all PPP antimen gat no shame . . .
Former Member
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">Justice Chang rejects Nandlall application for restoration of budget cuts â but approves funding for ERC
By CSPRINGER - EDITOR | LOCAL | WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2012 ( Stabroek News )
Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang this afternoon rejected the ex-parte application by Attorney General Anil Nandlall for the restoration of the $21 billion cut from the budget by the National Assembly, but ordered that Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh be allowed to withdraw monies from the Consolidated Fund, as is necessary, for the functioning of the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC).
Justice Chang, in his 33-page ruling, found that the National Assemblyâs reduction of the ERCâs budget to $1 was unconstitutional as it did not perform its constitutional duty under Article 222 A(a) of the Constitution. âIn order to enable that constitutional entity and its secretariat to perform its constitutional functions, the court orders the Ministry of Finance to allow all expenditures necessary from time to time for the maintenance of that entity and for the performance of it constitutional function to be charge directly upon the Consolidated Fund (as mandated by the Constitution) until the National Assembly determines a lump sum by way of subvention to meet such expenditures in accordance with Article 222 A(a),â Justice Chang said in his ruling.
The government through Nandlall filed the ex-parte motion, asking the court to grant an order vacating and/or setting aside the budget reduction as well as an interim order to allow Finance Minister Singh to make advances from the Consolidated Fund to restore the original allocations for the agencies affected by the cuts.
However, Justice Chang, while finding that the National Assembly acted outside of its remit in reducing the budget did find that the Appropriation Bill passed by Parliament and which includes the budget cuts and was assented to by President Donald Ramotar was in fact constitutional.
âIn summary, the court finds that the act of the National Assembly in cutting or reducing the estimates of expenditure laid by the Minister of Finance under Article 218 of the Constitution was outside its constitutional remit. Nevertheless, the Appropriation Bill laid before and passed by the National Assembly and to which the President assented was not unconstitutional. Since the Constitution (and Parliament) have reposed power to take remedial action against the consequences of those cuts or reduction in the Minister of Finance and not in the court, no interim relief relating thereto can be ordered by the court,â the acting Chief Justice ruled.
Lawyers for Opposition Leader David Granger and Speaker of the House Raphael Trotman in his capacity of leader of the AFC have now been given leave to file an affidavit in answer to Nandlallâs application. The comments made by Chang in his ruling are only summary and since the matter is now in its preliminary stage the final determination would be made after he would have heard arguments by all sides.
The matter continues on September 6.
The affidavit in support of Nandlallâs application was sworn to by Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr Roger Luncheon and averred that no power resides in the National Assembly, either in the Committee of Supply, or at all, to move an amendment to reduce any aspect of the Annual Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure laid by the Minister of Finance.
As a result, Luncheon contended that the two motions moved by MPs Khemraj Ramjattan and Carl Greenidge to effect the budget cuts âamounted not only to an arrogation of powers which the Constitution does not confer upon them, but was also a usurpation of a function which the Constitution exclusively resides in the Executive, thereby, abrogating the doctrine of separation of powers.â
Luncheon argued that the Constitution contemplates that Parliamentâs two components, the President, as the supreme executive authority and head of the executive, and the National Assembly, will function constructively and in harmony with each other.
The agencies identified in the application as being affected by the budget cuts are Office of the President, including Cabinet, Advisers to Cabinet, the Defence Board, Presidential Advisers, the Government Information Agency, the National Communications Network; Office of the Prime Minister, and specifically the Guyana Power and Light; the Ministry of Finance, and in particular the Ethnic Relations Commission, the State Planning Secretariat, and the Low Carbon Development Strategy; and the Guyana Elections Commission. Luncheonâs affidavit also claimed that hundreds of persons who are directly employed by affected offices and agencies are now, without any fault of theirs or their employers, rendered jobless, colliding with their legitimate expectation of gainful continued employment.</h6>
By CSPRINGER - EDITOR | LOCAL | WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2012 ( Stabroek News )
Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang this afternoon rejected the ex-parte application by Attorney General Anil Nandlall for the restoration of the $21 billion cut from the budget by the National Assembly, but ordered that Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh be allowed to withdraw monies from the Consolidated Fund, as is necessary, for the functioning of the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC).
Justice Chang, in his 33-page ruling, found that the National Assemblyâs reduction of the ERCâs budget to $1 was unconstitutional as it did not perform its constitutional duty under Article 222 A(a) of the Constitution. âIn order to enable that constitutional entity and its secretariat to perform its constitutional functions, the court orders the Ministry of Finance to allow all expenditures necessary from time to time for the maintenance of that entity and for the performance of it constitutional function to be charge directly upon the Consolidated Fund (as mandated by the Constitution) until the National Assembly determines a lump sum by way of subvention to meet such expenditures in accordance with Article 222 A(a),â Justice Chang said in his ruling.
The government through Nandlall filed the ex-parte motion, asking the court to grant an order vacating and/or setting aside the budget reduction as well as an interim order to allow Finance Minister Singh to make advances from the Consolidated Fund to restore the original allocations for the agencies affected by the cuts.
However, Justice Chang, while finding that the National Assembly acted outside of its remit in reducing the budget did find that the Appropriation Bill passed by Parliament and which includes the budget cuts and was assented to by President Donald Ramotar was in fact constitutional.
âIn summary, the court finds that the act of the National Assembly in cutting or reducing the estimates of expenditure laid by the Minister of Finance under Article 218 of the Constitution was outside its constitutional remit. Nevertheless, the Appropriation Bill laid before and passed by the National Assembly and to which the President assented was not unconstitutional. Since the Constitution (and Parliament) have reposed power to take remedial action against the consequences of those cuts or reduction in the Minister of Finance and not in the court, no interim relief relating thereto can be ordered by the court,â the acting Chief Justice ruled.
Lawyers for Opposition Leader David Granger and Speaker of the House Raphael Trotman in his capacity of leader of the AFC have now been given leave to file an affidavit in answer to Nandlallâs application. The comments made by Chang in his ruling are only summary and since the matter is now in its preliminary stage the final determination would be made after he would have heard arguments by all sides.
The matter continues on September 6.
The affidavit in support of Nandlallâs application was sworn to by Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr Roger Luncheon and averred that no power resides in the National Assembly, either in the Committee of Supply, or at all, to move an amendment to reduce any aspect of the Annual Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure laid by the Minister of Finance.
As a result, Luncheon contended that the two motions moved by MPs Khemraj Ramjattan and Carl Greenidge to effect the budget cuts âamounted not only to an arrogation of powers which the Constitution does not confer upon them, but was also a usurpation of a function which the Constitution exclusively resides in the Executive, thereby, abrogating the doctrine of separation of powers.â
Luncheon argued that the Constitution contemplates that Parliamentâs two components, the President, as the supreme executive authority and head of the executive, and the National Assembly, will function constructively and in harmony with each other.
The agencies identified in the application as being affected by the budget cuts are Office of the President, including Cabinet, Advisers to Cabinet, the Defence Board, Presidential Advisers, the Government Information Agency, the National Communications Network; Office of the Prime Minister, and specifically the Guyana Power and Light; the Ministry of Finance, and in particular the Ethnic Relations Commission, the State Planning Secretariat, and the Low Carbon Development Strategy; and the Guyana Elections Commission. Luncheonâs affidavit also claimed that hundreds of persons who are directly employed by affected offices and agencies are now, without any fault of theirs or their employers, rendered jobless, colliding with their legitimate expectation of gainful continued employment.</h6>
Former Member
Originally Posted by Churchill:
the Appropriation Bill laid before and passed by the National Assembly and to which the President assented was not unconstitutional.
bottom line: if Donald didn't like the cuts, he shouldn't have signed the damn bill!!
Next time the opposition will just vote the budget down if there is no compromise and the PPP bring their arrogance to conference.
By CSPRINGER - EDITOR | LOCAL | WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2012 ( Stabroek News )
Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang this afternoon rejected the ex-parte application by Attorney General Anil Nandlall for the restoration of the $21 billion cut from the budget by the National Assembly, but ordered that Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh be allowed to withdraw monies from the Consolidated Fund, as is necessary, for the functioning of the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC).
Uh ALbutt de PPP set yuh up
Former Member
you ppp fools get use for more bad news,let the government call a snap election the guyanese people will build a new jail for the ppp crime family
Former Member
Its unconstitutional for the Joint Opposition to slash the budget
Former Member
the parlament is the highest law in the land and if the government cannot accept the ruling of the parlament then the government is unconstitutional,in case like this the army can take over the country or you can have a coup maybe this should happen in guyana and let hope for a change
Former Member
Originally Posted by warrior:
the parlament is the highest law in the land and if the government cannot accept the ruling of the parlament then the government is unconstitutional,in case like this the army can take over the country or you can have a coup maybe this should happen in guyana and let hope for a change
Dream on. PNC/GDF alliance will not be allowed to rule over Guyana again.
Former Member
Originally Posted by Conscience:
Its unconstitutional for the Joint Opposition to slash the budget
?????
Former Member
from what i am seeing the ppp is opening the gate,the golden rule that the ppp is not following change or bend or you will break
Former Member
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Conscience:
Its unconstitutional for the Joint Opposition to slash the budget
?????
. . . and the slash became constitutional when the legislature passed the budget and the President signed the bill.
Pay attention!!
Former Member
| Opposition cannot cut budget; ERC to get back money- Chief Justice | | Print | |
| Written by Denis Scott Chabrol |
| Wednesday, 18 July 2012 17:46 |
  Chief Justice Ian Chang The High Court on Wednesday preliminarily ruled that the combined oppositionâs budget cuts are illegal only that the Ethnic Relations Commission could have its GUY$$99.4 million restored because it is a constitutional body that draws directly on the Consolidated Fund. âIn order to enable that constitutional entity and its secretariat to perform its constitutional functions, the court orders the Ministry of Finance to allow all expenditures necessary from time to time for the maintenance of that entity and for the performance of its constitutional function to be charged directly from the Consolidated Fund (as mandated by the Constitution) until the National Assembly determines a lump sum by way of a subvention to meet such expenditure,â Chief Justice Ian Chang said in his 34-page judgment. He noted that the National Assembly apparently had not fixed a lump sum based on a review of the ERCâs annual budget. Excerpts from Demerarawaves |
Former Member
Some wins, some losses, but the PPP is now forced to talk to the opposition.
Former Member
guyana is having too much talk and no action,no wonder guyana is 50 yrs back than the rest of the carribbean
Former Member
Originally Posted by warrior:
guyana is having too much talk and no action,no wonder guyana is 50 yrs back than the rest of the carribbean
Nah, so what you suggest?
But certainly, the rest of the region had a 28 yr head start.
Former Member
that is what we call a old song guyana is so far backward it is sad and all the people hear ABOUTis 28 YRS well my friend that is bullshit
Former Member
Originally Posted by warrior:
that is what we call a old song guyana is so far backward it is sad and all the people hear ABOUTis 28 YRS well my friend that is bullshit
Maybe so, but true. East Germany is still 25 yrs behind West Germany after 24 years of merger and 1 trillion USD in investment. And they did not have slo fiah mo fiah culture to deal with.
Former Member
2012 Budget cuts unconstitutional - CJâs verdict
Georgetown, GINA, July 18, 2012 -- Source - GINA
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall today stated that Chief Justice (CJ) (ag) Ian Chang has ruled that the National Assembly has no power under the constitution to reduce the National Estimates when they are presented for approval.
The Chief Justice in a preliminary ruling stated that in relation to the National Estimates, the National Assembly â performs a gate-keeping function, a power of disapproval is not contemplated by the Constitution.â
The Attorney General (AG) was updating reporters on the preliminary pronouncement of the CJ delivered today, on Governmentâs application to the Supreme Court for an Interim Order to allow the Minister of Finance to access monies cut from National Budget. According to the ruling, he now has the power to do so, if necessary.
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall peruse the 33-page preliminary pronouncement of Chief Justice Ian Chang delivered today, on Governmentâs application to the Supreme Court for an Interim Order to allow the Minister of Finance to access money cut from National Budget
An application for a Stay of Execution for the amended Order granted was submitted by Senior Counsel Rex McKay immediately after the ruling. This was objected to by the AG and refused by the CJ after hearing arguments on both sides.
While the case is still ongoing and has been adjourned to September 6, 2012, the AG stated, âI am pleased with the courtâs ruling. My submissions have been vindicated.â
He said that according to the ruling of the CJ, when the National Assembly cut the 2012 National Estimates and Expenditures, âthey acted outside of the constitution and therefore unconstitutionally.â
AG Nandlall said also that âthe court proceeds to say that the Minister of Finance is resided with the power under the Constitution and the law, to withdraw from the Contingency and the Consolidated Funds, whenever the Minister has formed the opinion that there is a need to do so, and that is what the law says.â
More importantly, he noted that with regard to the preliminary pronouncement of the court that the reduction is unconstitutional, âthe Minister is now free to exercise his statutory and constitutional powers; which is to withdraw from the Consolidated and/or the Contingency Funds for the purpose of funding agencies where he feels that there has been an insufficient allocation made.â
Legal luminaries gather in a relaxed manner before entering the Chief Justiceâs Chamber this afternoon to receive the preliminary pronouncement on Governmentâs application to the Supreme Court for an Interim Order to allow the Minister of Finance to access money cut from the National Budget
With respect to the vindication of his submissions that the cuts were unconstitutional, AG Nandlall referred to page 17 of the judgment which states: âApplying that doctrine to the interpretation of article 218, it does appear to the court that it was not permissible for the National Assembly to cut or to reduce the estimates and expenditures to any particular figure since in so doing, the National Assembly was both determining and approving such estimates. If the drafters of the Constitution has wanted the National Assembly to exercise such a power they would have easily conferred such a power on it in the Constitution in express terms as was done in India- see Article 113 (2) of the Constitution of India; or Australia.â
The CJâs ruling is that the Minister of Finance based upon his opinion as outlined in the Constitution and the Financial Management and Accountability Act, âis free to form an opinion as to whether or not he needs additional monies in respect of the Estimates and if the Minister forms that opinion, then he is free to withdraw the money and then seek Parliamentary approval.
In relation to the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC), because that body is a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund, the CJ has made an Order in relation to that one in particular. In relation to the remaining reliefs which are the substantive reliefs, those are left to be granted when the matter is fully heard and determined.
The AG explained that the Constitution allows the Minister of Finance to access monies from the Consolidated Fund in two ways, one before going to Parliament, and the other subsequent to going to Parliament. Thus the CJ in his ruling has said that because the ERC is a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund, it is not subject to parliamentary approval.
Additionally, the CJ has ruled that: âif the Minister of Finance finds that the amounts appropriated by the Appropriation Act are insufficient, itâs open to him to lay before the National Assembly, a Supplementary Estimate of Expenditure under Article 218 (3) of the Constitution.
Additionally, if he is satisfied that there is an urgent need for expenditure for which provision has not been made, it is open to him to approve a Contingency Fund advance or advances by the issuance of drawing rights âĶâ
This ruling, the AG states, has paved the way for the Minister to now exercise âhis opinion and his statutory powers for all of the budget cuts.â
The case is divided into two parts, Interlocutory and Substantive. The Interlocutory part has been concluded, with the Substantive action left to be determined.
Former Member
Originally Posted by Conscience:
Its unconstitutional for the Joint Opposition to slash the budget
have you been drinking?
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Conscience:
Its unconstitutional for the Joint Opposition to slash the budget
have you been drinking?
Jason still feeling the effects of falling and bumping his head 
Former Member
Originally Posted by Conscience:
Its unconstitutional for the Joint Opposition to slash the budget
You need to re-read the ruling Berty.
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by Churchill:
the Appropriation Bill laid before and passed by the National Assembly and to which the President assented was not unconstitutional.
bottom line: if Donald didn't like the cuts, he shouldn't have signed the damn bill!!
Next time the opposition will just vote the budget down if there is no compromise and the PPP bring their arrogance to conference.
yOU ARE SUCH A SHAMELESS ASS!!!!!
Originally Posted by Conscience:
Its unconstitutional for the Joint Opposition to slash the budget
How so?
It is their job to keep the Govt Accountable.Some thing you PPPites would not understand . The PPP had the majority before the last election and passed budget as they wished so tey could thief the money.
Add Reply
Sign In To Reply
63 online (0 members
/
63 guests)