Justice Chang exempts Granger, Dr Singh from hearing

Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang ruled on Wednesday that opposition Leader David Granger and Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh are exempted from the 2012 budget cuts case, leaving Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman the lone respondent in the legal action brought on by the government.
Justice Chang, in his ruling at the High Court, said as members of parliament, the Constitution provides immunity for Granger and Dr Singh as it relates to lawsuits, and based on that, he excluded the two members of parliament from further proceedings in the trial, while stating that they should not have been included in the legal action.
Different category
On the other hand, the chief justice explained that Trotman falls into a different category as the Speaker of the House, therefore, when the “article” was examined, it did not exempt him. He also ruled on an application made last week that Cabinet Secretary Dr Roger Luncheon does not have to appear in court for cross-examination, instead his affidavit evidence will be used.
The matter will move forward with Attorney General Anil Nandlall and lawyer for the Speaker, Attorney Khemraj Ramjattan. Both parties will have to agree on a statement of facts before they further proceed with the matter. At the next hearing set for July 5, legal arguments will commence between the parties.
Granger’s Attorney Basil Williams expressed his disappointment at the ruling, stating that the government must be answerable on how they are spending the people’s money.
“We are very disturbed by the ruling and we believe that Dr Luncheon and his cohorts in the government must come and face the people’s representatives and give us an account of how they are spending the money and they must show why they are saying that we were not justified in making the cuts,” said Williams.
He said the Speaker has no interest in examining the Cabinet secretary, but is only concerned with whether he can cut the budget or not. Williams said he will be appealing the chief justice’s decision.
However, Nandlall, who had made the application for Dr Luncheon’s affidavit evidence be used instead of him having to appear in court, told media operatives that he is happy with the ruling since a cross-examination was “absolutely unnecessary” because the matter involves “pure questions of law”.
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, claiming that enough explanation was not provided to them by the government.
The government moved 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 2013 Gy$ 208.8 billion budget presented by government. The Speaker also proclaimed that the courts have no oversight responsibility or powers over the legislature.