By Abena RockcliffeThe Court of Appeal ruled on Friday that the National Assembly can indeed make amendments toFormer Attorney General, Anil Nandlallthe National Budget. This ruling overturned a previous decision handed down by acting Chief Justice Ian Chang during the life of the Tenth Parliament.This was a case filed by the then Attorney General, Anil Nandlall after the Opposition Parties—A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC)—had cut the National Budget taken to the House by the PPP Government in 2012.Chang ruled in the favour of the PPP Government that the combined parliament opposition had no right to amend the Budget. Chang said that the power of the National Assembly is to either approve or disapprove.The then Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, had challenged Chang’s ruling in 2012. He had ruled in the House that the National Assembly can decrease a Budget but cannot increase sums that were appropriated.Friday’s ruling was handed down by acting Chancellor of the Judiciary,Cheap Nike NFL Jerseys, Carl Singh who presided over the proceedings along with Justices of Appeal Yonette Cummings-Edwards and B.S Roy. The court found that Chang’s approach on the matter was markedly narrow and restrictive.? Further, it was noted that aspects of Chang’s ruling were found to be “troubling.”Yesterday, Nandlall told Kaieteur News that he hadn’t seen the ruling. His only knowledge about it is based on what he would have read in the media.? However, he said, “I suppose the case was not defended.”The former AG said that while he was the one who initially filed the case, he was removed from the case as a result of the change of government which saw him being replaced by APNU’s Basil Williams.“So it became a case between Basil Williams and Khemraj Ramjattan who defended Raphael Trotman but theyFormer Speaker,NFL Jerseys Cheap, Raphael Trotmanare all on the same side,Air Max 98 Gundam For Sale,” said Nandlall.Nandlall said too that he feels as if he became caught in some sort of “strange matrix.”? The politician pointed out the fact that the government offered no new arguments in the case.However, Attorney at Law, Roysdale Forde said that Nandlall was being less than honest in presenting over the state of affairs the way he did. Forde, along with Khemraj Ramjattan, defended Trotman.The Attorney said that the bottom line remains that the court does not see parties or party officials, it sees litigants.? He noted, too, that Attorney General Basil Williams did not concede or offer any concession in anyway.Forde said that the only new argument was a written and submitted by himself and Ramjattan on behalf of Trotman.Further, the Attorney said that Nandlall is fully aware of the fact that in examining the appeal, the Court would have looked at all the arguments? presented by him when he was Attorney General as well as those presented by Pretima Kissoon who represented the State then, and remained the State representative during the appeal case.Forde said that Nandlall presented the position of the then government and that position was recorded and considered by the court.Also, Forde said that the submissions were written.? “So there was no hanky panky. I am disappointed that he (Nandlall) made it seem like there was.”Attorney General,Wholesale NFL Jerseys China, Basil Williams, told Kaieteur News that the decision is “too late” and is of no benefit to “us now because we are now in the government.”Asked to respond to the sentiments expressed by Nandlall,Cheap NFL Jerseys China, Williams said, “I do not know what is it that Nandlall is trying to say. At the end of the day the PPP lost the case.”While Williams said it is too late, Raphael Trotman told Kaieteur News that he feels vindicated.The former speaker of the National Assembly said that when he made the decision in 2012 that the opposition is indeed allowed to cut,Cheap Stitched Jerseys, he was vilified. He said that the entire episode with regards to the proposed Budget cuts was unprecedented in the English speaking Caribbean.? However, he did his research and communicated with other Parliaments around the world some of which had dealt with such a situation.Trotman said that from his extensive research he found that it was indeed constitutional for the National Assembly to reduce a Budget even though it cannot add to it.The Minister said that the ruling by the Court of Appeal shows that his ruling handed down in the National Assembly was in order and indeed harmonizes with the constitution of Guyana.Trotman said that it is good to know that a properly constituted court which would have objectively review