Trinidad-based Senior Counsel Seenath Jairam yesterday entered an appearance on behalf of the government when the hearing on its motion to restore over $20B in allocations cut from the National Budget continued before acting Chief Justice Ian Chang.
During in chamber hearings in the morning, attorneys Khemraj Ramjattan and Roysdale Forde, who are lawyers for Speaker Raphael Trotman, argued that the “entire court matter is misconceived and very heavily flawed” since it is unconstitutional for the Minister of Finance to receive money from the treasury through the courts. In the afternoon, Llewellyn John, lawyer for Opposition Leader David Granger, began his arguments.
The case continues this morning.
On June 4, the government through Nandlall filed the ex-parte motion, asking the court to grant an order vacating and/or setting aside the budget reduction as well as an interim order to allow Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh to make advances from the Contingencies Fund to restore the original allocations for the agencies affected by the cuts.
Speaking to reporters following the conclusion of the morning hearing, Nandlall announced that Jairam had joined his legal team to fight the case on the government’s behalf. Quizzed as to Jairam’s expertise, he responded that “he is a Senior Counsel. He has years of experience in constitutional matters and he is president of the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago as well as a former High Court judge.”
Asked why the government found it necessary to bring Jairam on board, he said “I think the case is important and all the assistance that the state requires, it should resort to.”
Nandlall would not reveal the price attached to Jairam’s services, explaining that it had not been discussed. “Jairam, as you know, is a Guyanese by birth and the terms of his retainer [have] not yet been discussed. He perhaps might be working pro bono,” he added.
‘Strong case’
Jairam, asked why he took on the case, said that he has done many constitutional law cases in Trinidad as well as judicial reviews. “The Attorney General thinks that I have some experience and expertise in the case and had retained me to appear along with him for the government,” he said.
He revealed that he knew that he was appearing in the case a while back and had used the time to do some research in Trinidad and prepare some written submissions.
He said he believed that the government has a strong case. “I think the government has a strong case from my respectful view despite the arguments,” he said.
He told reporters that Guyana, like all commonwealth countries, enjoys the separation of powers; that is, the executive, the judiciary and the legislative. “In my view, if the opposition has the right to reduce a budget they will be frustrating the will of the executive.
They don’t have a right to reduce under the constitution, they may withhold their approval but they cannot reduce,” he argued. “Under Article 65, parliament may make laws for the peace, order and good government of Guyana. You cannot reduce the budget by one dollar, causing people who are employed with the state to be dismissed through no fault of their own. That is chaos,” he added.
When it was pointed out to him that months after the budget had been slashed by the opposition government has not announced a single dismissal, he stated that “If monies are not approved there would have to be. How are they to be paid? Perhaps the minister is shifting around funds, I don’t know what mechanisms (are in place) but common sense tells you that unless the monies are voted for the particular areas, there will have to be dislocations.”
Commenting on his retainer fee, Jairam invoked attorney-client privilege and noted that he is yet to submit an invoice to Nandlall. “I do not like to impose a fee on any client. I will have to discuss it with him as to what is a reasonable fee,” he added.
“Court order
a bypass”
Ramjattan, meanwhile, said that their case is that what the opposition did in the Committee of Supply “was not unconstitutional at all.”
“The order that is being sought here whereby the AG wants the Minister of Finance to go into the treasury to take out $20.9 billion by a court order rather than by legislative authorisation from the National Assembly, that is unconstitutional, when he is coming through a court order. The court order is but a bypass to avoid legislative authorisation and we are saying that this entire court matter is misconceived and very heavily-flawed” he said.
He noted that this was the line of argument that he and Forde pursued during their submissions, while adding that the AG “would definitely be asking for some time” to respond to their arguments.
Asked about his views on Jairam’s association with the case, Ramjattan said that “the state is entitled to take its legal advisors from far and near. I don’t know how he is being retained but obviously like how any other client retains a lawyer, you pay him a fee and say come or you beg him to come for free.”
Responding to Jairam’s argument that a budget reduction can cause chaos, the attorney said that the government accepted $168B but “it now appears that they feel that (with) the $20.9B, they could come and get (it) through a court order. Well we are arguing strenuously against that”.
