Opposition Leader, Finance Minister dropped from budget cut case
June 20, 2013, By KNews, Filed Under News, Source
Acting Chief Justice (CJ) Ian Chang ruled that Leader of the Opposition David Granger should no longer be a person of interest in the 2012 budget cut case and has therefore struck him out of the court matter.
The Chief Justice ruled at the High Court yesterday that Granger was no longer a defendant in the matter of Attorney General Anil Nandlall versus Raphael Trotman, Speaker of the National Assembly, David Granger and Ashni Singh, Finance Minister.
He also ruled that the Minister of Finance Dr Ashni Singh is also no longer a litigant in the matter.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall had argued that the Opposition Leader was not the one responsible for the budget cuts. He blamed the House Speaker for allowing votes for the cuts. With this argument, the Attorney General felt that Granger should no longer be a participant in the court matter.
Lawyers for the Opposition Leader, Basil Williams and Deborah Backer, argued however, that Brigadier Granger, being the Leader of the Majority Opposition, must be a person with an interest in any matter voted on by the National Assembly, and taken to the High Court by the Attorney General, and must be heard in any such matter.
APNU stated via a press release following yesterday’s court hearing that despite their strenuous requests to be heard on the matter before Justice Chang made his ruling, lawyers were refused a hearing, and the CJ proceeded with his judgment.
They charged that “today’s (yesterday) court ruling by the Chief Justice (acting) Mr. Ian Chang is a calculated political move to prevent the Leader of the Parliamentary Majority Honourable Brigadier David A. Granger from being heard on the matter.”
They said that they “firmly believe that this move is intended to prevent the Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr. Roger Luncheon from being cross examined on the “gloom and doom”statements (which he swore in his affidavit) would follow the budget cuts.
APNU lawyers had asserted in court that where there is no trial or evidence led, a Plaintiff would not be granted a declaration. The AG is seeking to use only the affidavit of their witnesses instead on having them enter the witness box. As a matter for the future, Attorney Nandlall told the court that the matter should not necessarily be treated as a trial, but rather for reference, although a request for a final ruling on whether the opposition has the right to cut the annual budget is requested.
Williams further argued that a Plaintiff, in a matter, must prove his case through live evidence of witnesses from the witness box. “The opposition plans to mount a vigorous appeal of this obviously flawed legal position taken by the Learned Chief Justice,” he told the media.
Concerning the Speaker of the National Assembly, his lawyer Khemraj Ramjattan has requested that to settle a statement of fact means that the Judge would rule on a set of factual information consented to by the parties involved.
Opposition lawyers requested however to be a part of the court proceedings and to make submissions on the ongoing matter. The Chief Justice has allowed it.