Arguments began yesterday in the High Court in the matter of the Conservatory Order sought by APNU to put a stop to any “unauthorized and illegal spending” by the government until a hearing of the substantive action.
Early in December, 2014, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Leader David Granger made an application to the Court for an order to halt any unauthorized spending by the Govern-ment and also for spending on programmes that were disapproved by the National Assembly to be stopped.
His application was the result of concerns raised by the Opposi-tion about government spending public monies without any parliamentary scrutiny after Parliament was suspended on November 10, 2014.
Granger’s lawyers opened the arguments yesterday in Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang’s chambers with attorney Rex McKay arguing that the affidavit in answer provided by Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, who is appearing for the government and the Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh, did not have any substance.
Attorney Basil Williams, who is also one Granger’s lawyers, continued the arguments, stating that Conservatory Orders were granted under similar circumstances in Kenya and Trinidad. He said these Orders were granted on the basis to protect public funds.
Speaking to the press after exiting the Chief Justice’s Chambers, Williams noted that the Opposition is contending that despite disapproval by the National Assembly of the government’s proposed spending, Singh still spent some $4.5 billion on the same disapproved programmes.
He stated that the “minister has been spending illegally” and there was nothing in the constitution that could prove that the spending was legitimate. He said this is a very important issue and if the public coffers are being threatened a Conservatory Order should be issued.
Senior Counsel Ashton Chase, who is also appearing for the government, began his arguments and is expected to continue them on Friday.
Nandlall is expected to begin his arguments on Friday also; however, he stated that it was the Government’s position that there is “nothing to defend”.
He contended that the “Minister of Finance has acted in compliance with constitutional provisions that are well known and has followed constitutional procedures that are well recognized”.
He added that “the order that is being sought by the Opposition is misconceived” and that the case was filed as an “after-thought” to restrain spending when the spending would have almost been completed. “It was a badly thought out strategy and decision to implement or institute in the first place.”
It was the unauthorized spending by Singh that led the Alliance For Change (AFC) to bring a no-confidence motion against the government for a debate and vote in the House, causing the President to prorogue Parliament last year.
Singh, Nandlall and Speaker Raphael Trotman were named as the defendants in the court action.
Apart from the conservatory order, Granger is seeking a declaration by the court that the National Assembly lawfully disapproved programmes with allocations totaling $36,756,134,000 for 2014 and that Singh or other ministers designated by the President unlawfully spent or authorised the spending of monies on the programmes, to the tune of $4,553,761,991, for the period ending June 16, 2014.
In addition, he has asked for declarations that the purported spending by Singh or other ministers on the programmes was “unconstitutional, ultra vires, null and void, unreasonable” and in breach of the doctrine of the separation of powers, and that Singh or other ministers cannot lawfully spend or authorise the spending of monies on programmes that have been disapproved or not authorised by the National Assembly.
The action also asks for a declaration that the purported expenditure on the programmes that were disapproved by the National Assembly, cannot amount to a Statement of Excess within the meaning of Article 218 (3) (a) and (b) of the Constitution as well as an order that the classification of the spending under Statement of Excess is unlawful.
Justice Chang had ruled earlier this year that the National Assembly’s power is limited to either giving or withholding approval to the Finance Minister’s estimates of expenditure, but the government has maintained that the opposition’s disapproval of key allocations during the consideration of the estimates was unlawful. The administration has also been relying on Justice Chang’s previous interim ruling in the case to restore allocations that were cut by the opposition in the two previous years and disapproved this year.
