Latest update March 31st, 2025 6:44 AM
Latest News
- ExxonM and CNOOC sticking to 11B barrels figure in Stabroek Block, but Hess says estimate higher
- Deadly Israeli strikes mar Gaza Eid celebrations
- Govt. to roll out automated speed ticketing system next week
- Bandits push down guard, rob Chinese nationals of over $1M in cash, other items
- Omai increases gold pit drilling
APNU files motion to keep Granger in budget cut case
By Zena Henry
A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) strongly believes that any matter involving the budget cuts of 2012 demands the presence of the leader of the Opposition, David Granger. As such, an action has been filed before the High Court’s Chief Justice (CJ) Ian Chang to keep Granger in the budget cuts case, brought on by the government.
Opposition Leader David Granger
The Administration is arguing that the 2012 budget cuts made by the joint party opposition were unlawful and void, among other things. The issue was brought to the court’s attention to be determined whether or not the Opposition was allowed to cut the budget. In the meantime, the government filed that pending the determination of the matter, the Opposition’s cuts could not stand.
However, as members of the National Assembly cannot be sued; enjoying immunity within parliament walls, Chief Justice Chang decided that Granger and Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh should be excluded from the case.
The court document filed by several lawyers for the Opposition leader, states that the Chief Justice refused to give the defendant a hearing as to whether he should be struck out as a defendant, before making the order. It was stated that Granger played an integral role in the budget cuts issue as the Opposition leader. Last August, an answer was given in reply as to whether the Finance Minister was authorized to withdraw moneys from the Consolidated and Contingencies Funds.
It was mentioned in the dates that the matter was brought before the CJ, and the date a ruling was made in this temporary regard. In May 2013, a statement of defence was filed and the trial started on June 11. As the document states further, it is felt that if the matter is presided upon without Granger, he would have suffered great prejudice.
His lawyers, among them Basil Williams, argued that refusal to hear the Opposition leader is contrary to the rules of natural justice and Article 144(8) of the Constitution. At the time of the order, it is said that Granger would have waived his immunity under Article 172(2). Added to that, it is felt that the decision of the CJ was arbitrary and unreasonable.
As Opposition leader, Granger- as he voted for the budget cuts- had a legitimate expectation that he would be heard in the action made by Attorney General Anil Nandlall on behalf of the government. He has a constitutional right to be heard, while the serious trial issues raised in his defence ought to have permitted him the opportunity to defend the proceedings.
APNU in its motion opined that the CJ erred in law and misdirected himself when he failed to consider that at the stage in the trial when Granger was struck out, he had waived his immunity under a stipulated Article.
The court document further states that under Article 172(2) of the Constitution, the CJ struck out the Opposition leader because he had immunity from suit. This was however without giving the defendant a chance to speak.
Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman is also a defendant in the case. The government says the Speaker had no authority to permit the cuts that occurred in the National Assembly.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Choosing between bad and worse
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- I’ve always had an aversion to elections, which I suppose is natural for someone who... more
The U.S. “Joining” the Commonwealth: an unreasonable expectation
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- Recent media stories have suggested that King Charles III could “invite” the United... more
Weekend Cartoon
