Almost nine months after an appeal was filed to challenge the government favoured ruling in the 2012 budget cuts case, no date has been set and this delay is a cause of concern for attorney at law Khemraj Ramjattan.
Ramjattan, acting on behalf of the Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman, who was listed as a defendant in court documents filed by the Attorney General on behalf of the government, on February 25 filed documents to contest the final decision of acting Chief Justice Ian Chang, which in part said that the National Assembly acted “unlawfully and unconstitutionally” by effecting cuts to the 2012 budget estimates,
The APNU and the AFC—the parliamentary opposition—used their one seat majority to reduce the budgetary estimates by $21 billion. The opposition had cited a lack of transparency and accountability as explanations for the cuts to the allocations. The AG moved to the court in June 2012 asking for the cuts to be reversed and the monies restored.
Ramjattan who voiced his displeasure at the status of the matter said that based on his last checks the “case is still pending”. He informed that he has followed requests made of him with regard to the matter.
According to Ramjattan the last thing he did was to send seven copies of the entire record of the matter to the court. This was done at the request of the Registrar.
Asked if he was at all concerned about the delay in a date being set for hearing, he responded “very very much. I am very concerned that it is taking so long.”
In light of the delay, Ramjattan indicated that he intends to address his concerns to the Chancellor of the judiciary.
Back in June, Ramjattan had indicated that the process that leads to the start date being set is “long winded” but indicated that he would like to see aspects of the process fast tracked. He stated that the shortage of court staff is among the factors contributing to the delays at the court.
He had stated that the delay in this particular case was due to the fact that the documents used during the High Court hearings were still being compiled.
The attorney had explained that once the compilation had been completed, the Chancellor will set dates for arguments to be heard in the Court of Appeal. He explained that when a matter is filed with the Court of Appeal, the court would ask the lawyers for the documents that were filed while the case was being heard in the High Court. He said that what the court will then get is a bundle of records, numbering in this case (the budget cuts appeal), about 700 pages. He said the court has to be presented with seven copies of that bundle, which have to be indexed, among other things.
After these records are checked, the Chancellor, once satisfied, will then finalize a set of two or three days as more than likely the arguments in the case cannot be heard on one day alone. Justice Chang, in a ruling handed down on January 29, this year, declared that the National Assembly acted “unlawfully and unconstitutionally” by effecting cuts to the 2012 budget estimates, after finding that its power is limited to either giving or withholding approval. According to Justice Chang, while the Assembly may approve or not approve the Finance Minister’s estimates of expenditure, it has no power to change them by either reducing or increasing them.
“The power to amend may involve the power to approve. But a power to approve does not imply a power to amend,” he wrote in his decision.
It is the executive minister’s estimates and it is he who must amend them to obtain the Assembly’s approval so that the Cabinet may recommend or consent to the presentation of an Appropriation Bill to the Assembly for passing for the purpose of charging those estimates to the Consolidated Fund, Justice Chang found. It appears that only the Constitution itself and not even Parliament, much less the Assembly, he added, can authorise the Assembly to amend the estimates of the executive minister. And despite arguments to the contrary, he said the Standing Orders, being mere internal regulatory rules, cannot do so.
The matter had dragged on for months owing to numerous delays.
At one point Justice Chang struck out APNU leader David Granger and the Finance Minister as defendants in the case on the ground that they are parliamentarians and can’t be sued. This resulted in Trotman being the sole defendant. Granger subsequently moved to the courts to challenge that exclusion.
Priority
A legal source told this newspaper that delays in the Court of Appeal are a norm but also questioned why matters of national importance are not treated with urgency.
The source indicated that “appeals take a while”, adding that there are appeals cases from 2006 and 2007 that are now being heard in the court. From what this newspaper was told it appears that criminal matters are given precedence over civil ones. The source said that from all indications there is a backlog at the court and though it is noticeable to all including those holding key positions in the judicial system, there seems to be no attempt to bring relief to the situation.
According to the source, given the fact that this is a matter that can occur with each budget if the opposition continues to hold the one seat majority, the court ought to think about possibly adopting a position where such matters are given priority so they would end before the next budget period. Similar cuts were effected on the 2013 and 2014 budgets but there were no attempts to take these before the court.
While questioning whether the delay is a “deliberate” one, the source said given the fact that nine months have passed and that the lawyer had followed all the various instructions with still no date being assigned to the matter speaks volumes.
Observers say the time is ripe for the issue of backlog to be addressed as this issue is seemingly affecting very important matters.
Back in 2008, Chan-cellor of the Judiciary (Ag) Carl Singh had said that the current complement of judges and magistrates could not eliminate the list which stood at around 13,000. It would appear that since then the number of cases on the list would have increased significantly.
With respect to the Court of Appeal he had said back then that there is a shortage of personnel to collate the records and judges are saddled with the added responsibility. Justice Singh said bluntly that nothing is being done to address the issue. He referred to it as a disastrous situation since the judges themselves have to take the initiative of getting records of appeal collated so that they can proceed to hearing cases.
