Last week, we discussed the Court ruling on the excess expenditure of $4.554 billion that the Minister of Finance had authorised without prior parliamentary approval. We considered that the Chief Justice’s ruling on the Minister’s action to be a correct and sound one, although we had registered our disagreement to his earlier ruling on the 2012 “budget cuts” case. Our Attorney General has downplayed the substantive ruling and has instead chosen to elate himself with the peripheral issue of the denial of the grant of a conservatory order to prevent the Minister from repeating such action in 2015. We, however, felt that the Chief Justice should have granted for reasons discussed last week.
How does the Attorney General now feel, when all along he had vigorously defended the Minister’s action? Is he not first and foremost the Government’s principal legal advisor, as provided for under Article 112 of the Constitution? And what of the Minister who is on record as having stated that if the opportunity presented itself,
