By Zena HenryLawyer for the Speaker of the National Assembly,[url=http://www.salecheapjerseys.us@#$%&/]NFL Jerseys Cheap[/url], Khemraj RamjattanCome next Wednesday,[url=http://www.wholesalejerseyssale.us@#$%&/]China NFL Jerseys[/url], June 19, Chief Justice Ian Chang will decide on the way forward for the court proceedings in relation to the 2012 budget cuts; a matter that now has the Government and Opposition parties before the Supreme Court, arguing as to whether the cuts were legal.Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall on the last occasion had to file a statement of claim within five days to show the wrong committed by the Opposition when they made cuts to the 2012 budget. This was done, the AG said yesterday, in addition to an application that was made to have affidavits used in the interlocutory stage (interim of the actual trial) of the court matter used as evidence in the trial.In his argument, the AG stated that the matters raised are of pure law as facts. He said these factual issues as it relates to the powers of the Opposition in parliament, are not being disputed, but the ?narrow legal issue is whether the estimates presented by the Honourable Minister of Finance can be reduced by a motion moved by the opposition.?: Attorney for APNU, Basil WilliamsThat being the issue,[url=http://www.wholesalenfljerseyssale.us@#$%&/]Cheap NFL Jerseys[/url], the AG believes that, ?there is no need for us (parties before the court) to embark on a trial so to speak, by leading witnesses.? He asked that the affidavits which have been used at the interlocutory stage of the court matter be treated as evidence, ?and the rules of court permit that to be done,? he continued.Citing from the rules of the High Court, the AG said it is allowed for the affidavit of persons to be taken so as to allow their information as evidence. He further cited under what circumstances this is allowed. But opposition representatives are at odds with the AG?s suggestion. One notion was that the government had brought the opposition and the Speaker of the National Assembly to court and they should make available all the witnesses the government intends to call, so that the defence could have a chance to cross examine them. Apart from that, it was felt that the action brought by the AG is one where a case must be established with witnesses and not affidavits.A Partnership for National Unity representative, Basil Williams, feels that the AG?s application is seeking to hide his witnesses. He reiterated that the AG brought the action ?and this kind of action is an action where you have to establish a case with witnesses.? Williams is in disagreement with Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr. Roger Luncheon and other functionaries within the government not being able to take the witness box if the matter comes to that stage,[url=http://www.nfljerseyscheaponline.us@#$%&/]Wholesale Jerseys Online[/url], and further feels that ?paper evidence via an affidavit,[url=http://www.cheapnfljerseysmr.us@#$%&/]Authentic NFL Jerseys Wholesale[/url],? is not the way to go.In any event, he told the court, there is no cause pending. He submitted on behalf of his client that the matter should be struck out. He continued that there is no real controversy, dispute or live issue between the parties, ?because the matter was overtaken when the government?s side adopted the budget cuts and passed the Appropriation Bill.?While citing from legal documentation,[url=http://www.wholesalenfljerseyssale.us@#$%&/]Wholesale Jerseys[/url], Williams read that an issue must be active or live so as to engage the court. He charged that the 2012 budget cut matter is dead as the budget was passed, the President assented, and money was spent.The AG however raised the argument that for future reference a final ruling is necessary and he opposed the matter being struck out. He charged that the opposition was of the view that the interim ruling of the court was not binding and their current position is now, ?irreconcilable with earlier views expressed.? He pointed out that the relevant steps can be taken if the CJ?s ruling is not in favour of the opposition; that is, to address the Court of Appeal or take it to a higher forum in their quest for a favourable outcome.Attorney-at-law Khemraj Ramjattan, who is appearing for the Speaker of the National Assembly, was in support for the go-ahead of the court matter. He too believes that the outcome is necessary for future reference as it will declare – in this instance- the powers of the opposition as it relates to budget cutting.Attorney General Anil NandlallAccording to him, two primary issues exist in the matter; whether the Speaker of the National Assembly could be sued, ?in view of the article that says no civil proceedings could be brought against members of Parliament,? and ?whether there can be amendments to the budget as presented for the financial year 2012.? The larger significance of this ruling, he told the court,[url=http://www.cheapjerseysauthenticonline.us@#$%&/]Jerseys NFL China[/url], is whether the two issues are determinable and how they should be determined.Ramjattan also highlighted that if the court should feel that the budget cannot be amended or reduced, the matter shall be taken to the Court of Appeal and if they too so view it, the matter will then be taken to the Caribbean Court of Justice? and if they too feel that way, then the law must be respected, ?as that then becomes the law and that is what will govern us.?