Arguments in the appeal of the 2012 budget cuts ruling have started but the future of the case is uncertain following the recent change in government.
Attorney Khemraj Ramjattan had moved to the Court of Appeal last February to contest the ruling by acting Chief Justice Ian Chang that the National Assembly acted “unlawfully and unconstitutionally” when the APNU and AFC used their one-seat majority to reduce the Donald Ramotar administration’s budgetary estimates by $21 billion.
Ramjattan, who is now National Security Minister, represented Raphael Trotman, then Speaker of the National Assembly, during the High Court proceedings.
It was the then Attorney-General (AG) Anil Nandlall who approached the High Court asking for the cuts to be reversed and the allocations restored.
Trotman, then Opposition Leader David Granger and then Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh were named as defendants in the action. However, Justice Chang struck out Granger and Singh as defendants on the grounds that they were Members of Parliament and could not be sued.
The appeal hearing began in April and Ramjattan told Stabroek News that he put forth his arguments, while Nandlall had requested an adjournment in light of the impending elections.
The next hearing is fixed for June 29 but Ramjattan pointed out that Nandlall is no longer the Attorney-General and could not appear as a result. He explained that the new AG Basil Williams will have to appear in Nandlall’s place and he expected that he would concur with the earlier arguments he (Ramjattan) had made.
Williams was part of the legal team that had appeared in the initial case for Granger.
Nandlall, when contacted yesterday, also said since he is no longer the AG, “I don’t know what will happen now.”
Justice Chang, in his final ruling, had held that while the National 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 said.
Further, he said 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. It appears that only the Constitution itself and not even Parliament, much less the Assembly, he added, can authorise the amendment of the estimates of the executive minister.
Justice Chang said the very fact that the Constitution has provided for the approval and, by implication, non-approval of the minister’s estimates of expenditure by the Assembly in Article 218, leads to the “irresistible conclusion” that approval cannot be interpreted to mean “to amend.”
“In the circumstances, the court sees it fit to declare that the National Assembly through the Committee of Supply has acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally in purporting to reduce or cut the Estimates of Expenditure of the Minister of Finance for the financial year 2012,” he wrote.
Ramjattan had listed several grounds for his decision to appeal Justice Chang’s ruling, including that that the judge erred when he ruled that the National Assembly and its Committee of Supply do not have legal and constitutional authority to amend or reduce the Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana for any given year.
He also contends that the judge wrongly construed Articles 218 and 171 (2) (a) and (b) of the Constitution, thereby resulting in a construction that effectively ousted the National Assembly’s right and power to amend or reduce the Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana for the purpose of charging the said Estimates to the Consolidated Fund.
Further, Ramjattan submitted that the judge erred and overreached when he ruled that the amendment and reduction of the Estimates of Revenues and Expenditure of Guyana for the year 2012 by the National Assembly through its Committee of Supply was an abrogation of the doctrine of separation of powers, and hence unconstitutional, unlawful and void, because the National Assembly by such reduction and amendment was encroaching on the function of the Executive as exercised by the Minister of Finance.
He argued too that the judge erred when he ruled that the Minister of Finance was at liberty to make advances/withdrawals from the Contingencies Fund pursuant to Article 220 of the Constitution for the purpose of restoring the funds as originally budgeted for in the Estimates of 2012.
Observers have questioned the sense behind continuing with the matter given the amount of time that has passed.
One legal source said the matter should have been given priority by the Court of Appeal from the time it was filed. Instead, the source said, it was allowed to drag on until it has now reached a stage where the outcome may more than likely be affected due to the change in government.
The source said it would have been wiser to have the matter concluded prior to the elections. As it stands, the source said it makes no sense to spend any more time or effort on the matter.
In cutting the 2012 budget, the then combined opposition had cited a lack of transparency and accountability as their justification. Similar cuts were also made to the 2013 budget.
