Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman yesterday criticised the PPP/C administration’s move to the High Court over the opposition budget cuts, warning that the continued resort to legal action over parliamentary decisions signals the danger of a constitutional crisis of unimagined proportions.
“… [It] points to the grave and gathering danger of a constitutional crisis, which has the potential to assume proportions, the like of which the nation has never seen and may be unable to handle,” Trotman said in a statement.
“These challenges, in my humble opinion, are as unnatural and unhealthy as they are unconstitutional, and will weaken the already fragile fabric of our constitutional democracy,” he added, while urging a resumption of negotiations as an alternative solution. “Despite the government’s seeming abhorrence to negotiations, it is still being suggested that these are the best means to resolving our political differences,” he said.
His statement came a day after Attorney General Anil Nandlall filed a challenge that argues that the opposition-controlled National Assembly had no power to reduce the budget or set public spending. Both APNU and AFC yesterday also dubbed the latest court action an abuse of the legal process.
In an ex parte application, Nandlall has also requested that the court grant an interim order to allow Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh to make advances from the Contingencies Fund to restore the originally budgeted estimates for the agencies affected by the cuts. It is the second challenge filed by government against a decision made by the combined opposition majority in the National Assembly, following a failed bid to get the court to quash the composition of key parliamentary committees.
In April, APNU and the AFC used their one-seat majority in the National Assembly to effect cuts amounting to $20.8 billion from the $192.5 billion budget originally presented by Singh. As a result, Nandlall is also seeking an order by the court vacating and/or setting aside the budget reduction.
Trotman, who was named as one of the three defendants in the action in his capacity as Speaker and leader of the AFC, reminded yesterday that Article 51 of the Constitution clearly indicates that the various branches of government were meant to work in consonance, and not in conflict, with each other. He, however, said that the latest court matter brings into question “and possible derision, the very constitutional pillars upon which our democracy is founded, as it strangely asserts that the timeless, sacred and sacrosanct function of the National Assembly to approve public spending is only perfunctory.” He added that he was confident that a properly-constituted, informed, and unfettered Constitutional Court would strike down Nandlall’s requests.
Trotman said that because of the supremacy of the rule of law, and not of diktat, there will be no comments on the merits or demerits of individual allegations and statements made, but affirmed that “the latest action will have to be stoutly defended as this must be seen as the constitutional and public duty of every Member of Parliament.”
“Whilst the matter ensues, and without prejudice to its outcome, the constituent parties of the National Assembly are urged to meet, speak, and sort out the issues that continue to beset the 10th Parliament,” he added.
‘Unfortunate’
Nandlall later released a statement in response and emphasised that the right to seek judicial redress against any perceived legal wrong or constitutional impropriety is deeply rooted and cherished in the country’s jurisprudence and legal system.
Saying that the government remains committed to a process which would achieve consensus and avoid litigation, Nandlall stated that if there is any violation of the law or the Constitution, any one aggrieved, must have unhindered access to the courts for redress.
“It is in this context that the Executive’s recourse to legal proceedings must be viewed. It is unfortunate, that the Honourable Speaker of the National Assembly perceives it through a different prism,” he added.
Nandlall pointed out that the government’s simple contention is that the National Assembly has acted beyond, “ultra vires and in breach of the Constitution, has usurped the functions of the Executive and has violated the doctrine of separation of powers upon which our Constitution is constructed and it is seeking legal redress which it is constitutionally and democratically entitled to do.”
“It is our view, that the National Assembly, like every other creature of the Constitution, must act and function in the manner provided for and contemplated by the Constitution. In this instance, it is our considered view that it has not,” he said.
He dubbed Trotman’s statement “unfortunate,” noting that although he was an attorney-at-law, he had seen it fit to conclude that the very decisions of the National Assembly which are the subject of the legal challenge are “legitimate” and that the challenge itself is “unconstitutional,” when these are the very issues that are before the Court for the Court’s determination. “By so doing, the Honourable Speaker himself has violated certain trite and axiomatic legal principles,” Nandlall said.
‘Abuse’
Meanwhile, APNU and AFC spokespersons labeled this latest move by the government an abuse of the process of the court.
“We think it is… an abuse of the process of the court having regards that the Chief Justice had earlier made a ruling in a similar matter that was brought by the Attorney General and the Chief Justice had ruled that the motion was misconceived,” APNU MP Joe Harmon told Stabroek News yesterday.
Harmon, an attorney, argued that to file an action which is essentially seeking the same type of intervention by the court would yield a similar result. He added that APNU’s attorneys are prepared to appear before the court but he sounded the coalition’s disappointment over Nandlall utilising the state’s time in legal actions intended as distractions.
“We have other more serious and important business in the National Assembly to deal with, so rather than try to have the court intervene, the Attorney General should advise the government to seek to work with the opposition to make life better for the Guyanese people,” Harmon charged.
He stressed that Standing Order 76 (4) of the National Assembly addresses the power of the National Assembly in relation to the budget and he noted that the line of thinking behind the government’s move to the court is that the National Assembly could only approve the budget.
“So you either approve or you disapprove, which is a ridiculous and absurd interpretation to be given and it is stretches the imagination of the people to try to understand what the Attorney General is trying to achieve in the action,” Harmon said, while expressing his hope that the court “on this occasion will not be so lenient” with the Attorney General in the awarding of costs in the case.
APNU MP Dr Rupert Roopnaraine said the Attorney General seemed “persistent,” in light of the recent decision of the court to decline his invitation to trespass into the internal affairs of the parliament.
Dr Roopnaraine, who also expressed the hope that the court would be more severe in awarding costs in this matter, pointed out that Standing Order 76 (4) sets out in great details what the procedure is in the Committee of Supply for the amending of the estimates. He said that the section gives the right to any Member of Parliament to amend by motion any line item of the expenditure. However, any proposed amendment must be submitted 24 hours beforehand and must be circulated in a notice, which he said was the case in all amendments made by the AFC and APNU.
Chairman of the AFC Khemraj Ramjattan yesterday at a press conference called the court action a “sham” and described it as being “farcical” in nature.
He contended that naming Singh as a defendant in the matter is “rather ludicrous” and suggested it was done with the intention of having him appoint a lawyer who would go to the court and support the remedies that the Attorney General is requesting.
“It is an abuse of the process of the law,” Ramjattan argued, adding that the matter will be wasting the court’s time and taxpayer’s money.
Further, he described it as a “massive piece of distraction” so as to direct attention away from other pressing matters, such as government investment company NICIL.
In addition to Trotman and Singh, Opposition Leader David Granger is also named as a defendant in the matter, which is set to be heard today before acting Chief Justice Ian Chang.
It was Chang who recently threw out the Constitutional Motion by Nandlall challenging the numerical make up of the Committee of Selection, saying that the court had no authority.
