Final hearing of 2012 budget cuts case adjourned

June 11 is the date set for arguments to commence in the 2012 budget cuts case, filed by the government against the Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, and the combined opposition after cuts were made to the 2012 budget. This decision was made on Wednesday when the matter was called again before acting Chief Justice Ian Chang at the High Court.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall and his legal team are representing the government’s interest. Attorney Basil Williams, in association with Attorneys Debra Backer and Keisha Chase, is representing the Opposition Leader David Granger, while Attorneys Khemraj Ramjattan and Christopher Ram are representing the Speaker of the National Assembly.

During the court proceedings in September last year, it was agreed that the affidavits on the court’s file will be considered; however, the opposing attorneys denied the existence of the agreement in court on Wednesday, even though the court’s records show evidence of the agreement.
To avoid further confrontations and delay in the matter, Justice Chang ordered that the attorney general file a statement of claim, which the AG opted to do within five days. According to Nandlall, he did so because he wants to “accelerate the proceedings”.
Meanwhile, the Speaker of the House and the opposition leader will have to file a defence within 14 days hereafter, and then the AG is required to file a response to the defence, if necessary, within three days of receiving the document.
In April 2012, the combined opposition used its one-seat majority to slash Gy$ 21.9 billion from the proposed Gy$ 192.8 billion 2012 budget, after they felt that enough explanation was not provided to them by the administration.
Cuts were made to allocations for the State Planning Secretariat, the Ethnic Relations Commission, Low Carbon Development Strategy, the National Communications Network and Government Information Agency (GINA) among other entities. The government then took to the court to block the National Assembly from cutting the budget, and Justice Chang in a preliminary ruling said the opposition could only approve or disapprove of the budget in its entirety.
However, this year the opposition refused to abide by the preliminary ruling handed down by Justice Chang, arguing that it was not binding or final. As a result, the combined opposition with the Speaker’s blessings shaved more than Gy$ 31.4 billion off the Gy$ 208.8 billion budget presented by government.
Chaos reigned when the Speaker also proclaimed that the courts had no oversight responsibility or powers over the legislature.