Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang yesterday set June 11 as the next date for arguments to begin in the government’s case challenging cuts to the 2012 national budget.
This comes after a seven-month break in the case after Justice Chang had given a preliminary ruling and on the request of Attorney General Anil Nandlall who had penned a letter dated April 11, 2013. That letter reached Justice Chang four days before Speaker Raphael Trotman upheld the National Assembly’s right to amend the budget, while saying it could not be bound by the preliminary ruling of Justice Chang. Justice Chang had found that while the National Assembly had the power to reject or pass the budget, cutting or reducing the estimates was outside its constitutional remit.
When the case was called yesterday, Nandlall who is representing the government and attorneys for the defendants – Speaker Trotman and David Granger in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition were present.
Both sides offered short arguments on the filing of paperwork in relation to the case and after some disagreements, they finally decided on a date.
Nandlall made it clear that he will file his statement of claim within five days. However attorney at law Basil Williams who entered an appearance for Granger requested 21 days to file his defence. When Nandlall objected, he explained that the AG has “something in parliament he wants us to work on overnight”. He later reduced the time frame he wanted to 14 days.
Ramjattan who is representing Trotman also requested 14 days to file his defence. Nandlall will reply if necessary within three days of receipt of their defence.
Nandlall speaking to reporters outside the court room expressed hope that “the hearing will conclude in the shortest possible time”. He said that he undertook to file his claim within five days “in order to accelerate the proceedings”.
Last April, the opposition effected $20 billion in cuts from the government’s proposed budget, citing a lack of transparency and accountability in the explanations for the allocations. Although President Donald Ramotar later assented to the budget passed by the National Assembly, Nandlall subsequently moved to the courts to reverse the cuts. Justice Chang, however, said that while the National Assembly did not have the power to cut the budget, the court could not restore the funding sought by government, except for allocations to the Ethnic Relations Commission which is a constitutional agency and entitled to draw directly from the Consolidated Fund.
Similar cuts have since been made to the 2013 budget.
