Lawyers for Opposition Leader David Granger have reiterated that Granger was not given a fair hearing, while his right to waive his parliamentary immunity was overlooked when Chief Justice Ian Chang decided to dismiss the Leader from the 2012 budget cuts case.Attorney-at-Law Basil Williams made the case via submissions last week, at the commencement of arguments to determine whether the ruling by the Chief Justice was legitimate. The matter is before the Full Court. The Attorney General is responding to why the Opposition Leader is no longer relevant to the budget cuts case.Opposition Leader David GrangerWhile the Opposition Leader and Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh were parties in the legal matter they were ruled out of the budget case given that the two are protected by parliamentary immunity. Although Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman is also protected by parliamentary immunity, it was related that the Speaker would have been the facilitator of the combined Opposition’s unanimous 2012 budget cuts vote.Williams, to the learned judges, stated that the Opposition Leader was not given a fair hearing as to why he should remain in the budget cut case. Williams charged that the CJ’s ruling was contrary to Article 144(8) of the Constitution and the rules of natural justice; which states that ‘any Court or other tribunal provided by law’ in determining the existence/extent of any civil right or obligation shall be established by law and shall be independent and impartial; and where proceedings for such a determination are instituted by any persons before such court or other tribunal,Cheap Jerseys Free Shipping, the case shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time.Amidst the numerous authorities laid in support of this argument, Williams added that his client’s right to a fair hearing, is also a right to make a representation.Williams added that under Article 172(2) of the Constitution; his client wished to waive his parliamentary immunity which protects him from prosecution during his participation in the National Assembly. The Constitution reads that, ‘no civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted against any member of the Assembly for words spoken before or written in a report to the Assembly or to a committee…’Williams argued, however, that the discretion of a Member of Parliament to waive their parliamentary immunity prevails in many parts of the Commonwealth and highlighted with different authorities, scenarios where parliamentarians waived their immunity for a particular reason, especially in cases where the said parliamentarian wished to partake in legal proceedings.It was thus suggested that the issue to waive immunity boils down to the interpretation of the Constitution. Williams submitted therefore that, “it was the intention of the framers of our Constitution that a Member of Parliament should have the discretion to determine in any particular case, if it was in his interest, to waive his protection and defend the proceedings.”Williams submitted that if the language of an Article is plain and unambiguous and admits only of one meaning then the duty of the court is to adopt that meaning irrespective if the inconvenience that such a construction may produce.If however two constructions are possible, then the Court must adopt that which will ensure smooth and harmonious working of the Constitution and eschew the other which will lead to the absurdity or give rise to practical inconvenience or make well-established provisions of existing law nugatory, he added.Attorney General Anil Nandlall is expected to lay his case at the next hearing.
