J.R. Smith Jersey lw30v3ha
| …motion could return Thursday By Zena Henry The prolonged budget cut case will not prevent opposition members from moving towards bringing disciplinary action against Finance Minister Ashni Singh for what the parliamentary opposition says is the unauthorized spending of funds cut from the 2012 budget.In fact, the opposing side of the House could return the matter to Parliament at the next sitting scheduled for Thursday.Leader of the Alliance for Change (AFC) Khemraj Ramjattan during a telephone interview stated that, it has already been determined, based on the ruling of the legislative, that the Minister illegally spent money in areas where funding was reduced.AFC LeaderKhemraj RamjattanRamjattan was at the time explaining the effects that the two-year long budget cut case might have on disciplining the Minister when he related that, “We believe, the legislative branch of the government has already ruled on the issue. The Speaker determined that we could reduce allocations, so we are going with the Speakers ruling.”He noted that, “We are of the view that we can reduce allocations and line items in the budget; we believe the Constitution says that if the Attorney General believes otherwise, it is for the courts to rule. The Court has made a provisional ruling and we feel that the court’s provisional ruling is somewhat ambivalent, it did not state very categorically and very emphatically what the position is.”Chief Justice Ian Chang had ruled that the Opposition could not cut the budget, Ramjattan indicated, “Yet the CJ (Chief Justice) said that to use monies from the treasury,NFL Jerseys Cheap Authentic, you have to get a majority legal authorization from Parliament. So it contradicts each other. That is why we wanted clearly, to understand if Ashni Singh does not have legal authorization to put money into NCN, but after we cut he put it; what happens?”Ramjattan continued that the ruling on monies from the Treasury having to be legally authorized by Parliament is enough to pursue a Prima Facie case against the Minister.A motion by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU)’s Carl Greenidge has paved the way for the Opposition to make its case. Ramjattan alerted that Greenidge has already indicated that he is finished with that Motion, “and that I suspect will be put up at the next sitting of Parliament.”He explained further that the Speaker has already been written on the matter; it is however unknown as to whether the Speaker has ruled that the actions of the Minister constitutes a “Prima Facie case and a breach of privileges.”A decision on the substantive issue is yet to be determined. This relates to whether the Opposition can actually reduce budget allocations made by the government.This will be the third year since the budget cut matter is before the court. It will also be the third year that the Opposition – holding a majority in Parliament – will be reducing the budget. Both APNU and AFC, even before the 2014 budget is presented, have stated their intent to make reductions where necessary because of the “misuse” of public funds and the government’s continuance to exclude the Parliamentary Opposition from having a say in the National Budget.Additionally, lawyers for Brigadier David Granger, Leader of APNU, will be heading to the Court of Appeal for redress in the Chief Justice’s ruling to exclude Granger from the Budget cut case. Full Court Judges ruled on Monday that they had no jurisdiction to hear Granger’s appeal and this means that the leader remains excluded from the matter.The CJ stated that both Granger and the Finance Minister have no place in the budget cut case since they have Parliamentary immunity. The Speaker remains a defendant in the case since he facilitated the cutting of the budget.Finance MinisterAshni SinghRamjattan stated, however, that because of delays in the court system another budget is here and the case is not yet finished.Attorney General Anil Nandlall said that it is hoped that the budget cut case will continue uninterrupted. He suggested that no Appeal filed ought to prevent the CJ from delivering his final ruling, while adding that the case should soon reconvene and conclude expeditiously. |
