WHAT RIGHT TO BE HEARD?
June 22, 2013, By KNews, Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source
APNU is confusing itself over the recent decision by the court that it is no longer a party to the action brought by the Attorney General against its leader, the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Minister of Finance.
APNU is confusing a ruling to the effect that it cannot be sued or be joined to the action with its own interpretation that this excludes it as an interested party.
It was APNU which has always maintained that the Courts are ousted from inquiring into the actions of the National Assembly. It even expressed concerns over the decision of the Attorney General to constantly approach the Courts to challenge decisions made by the National Assembly.
One would have felt that given this stance, the opposition would have been relieved that the Chief Justice has ruled that its leader cannot be sued for the Budget cuts because the Constitution of Guyana immunizes the members of the National Assembly from being sued for actions they take as parliamentarians.
It is entering into dangerous waters for any political grouping to announce that it is not going to be bound by any specific decision of the court before knowing that decision. That is dangerous territory that APNU is threading into and will require clarification as to where it stands in respect to the rule of law in Guyana.
It is meaningless, also, for APNU to say that it will continue to make cuts to the Budget. That is not a decision for APNU. It is the Speaker that will have to allow such action to be taken and if the Speaker in the future sees himself bound by any decision of the court to the effect that the Budget cannot be reduced, then APNU really would not have much of a choice because any move to reduce appropriations would not be allowable.
It is still puzzling why APNU feels that it is necessary for the Head of the Presidential Secretariat to be cross examined. That person is merely contending in his sworn affidavit that there have been cuts to the proposed estimates of expenditure presented by the Minister of Finance in his Budget and these cuts have had certain effects.
That these Budget cuts have affected the original plans of government seems indisputable. In this regard, the cuts have had effects. This is a fact. Is APNU suggesting that the cuts have no effect and therefore it wishes to challenge the notion that the cuts have had had effects?
So what really is the basis for APNU wishing to cross examine the Head of the Presidential Secretariat? Whether or not the cuts had effects is of no material bearing to the fundamental questions that the Court is being asked to address. The court is being asked to address the issue of whether the Court has jurisdiction to inquire into the actions of the National Assembly.
The court is being asked to determine whether the constitution allows for a reduction in the proposed estimates of expenditure. The court is being asked other questions and these questions are going to be answered regardless of the magnitude of the effects of the Budget cuts.
Admittedly, if there are no effects of the Budget cuts, then that would constitute an abuse of the system of justice for the court to be approached to seek remedies. But surely the opposition cannot be saying that the effects of its cuts have had no effect. Or is this what they are saying?
Presenting the recent decision of the court as an exclusion of the opposition’s right to be heard is ridiculous. How can there be a right to hearing when the opposition is exempt from being sued? A right to be heard is only acquired if one is a defendant in a matter.
The court has ruled that the leader of the opposition cannot be sued in this matter. If he cannot be sued then he is not a defendant in the matter and since he is not a defendant there is no right to be heard.