標題: China Jerseys and filed by his lawyer
無頭像
yueyrt1Hft

帖子 24258
註冊 2017-9-13
用戶註冊天數 2388
用戶失蹤天數 1735
狀態 離線
發表於 2017-11-19 03:07 
36.57.179.82
分享  私人訊息  頂部
The past 12 months saw the courts being flooded with a number of high profile matters. These ranged from radio licenses to budgetary cuts to murders and the list goes on. The following is a summary of several interesting ones:RADIO LICENCESAs criticism grew over government’s refusal to recall several radio licences issued under unclear circumstances by former President Bharrat Jagdeo in 2011, private media houses turned to the court for recourse.The legal challenge was filed by the National Media Publishing Company, publishers of Kaieteur News, and the Guyana Media Proprietors Association Limited (GMPA). It named Attorney General, the Minister of Broadcasting, National Frequency Management Unit (NFMU), Guyana National Broadcasting Authority (GNBA) and twelve recipients that were granted broadcast licences by Jagdeo shortly before he ended his term in office in November 2011.The applicants for those licences were Radio Guyana Inc- owner of Guyana Times and TVG 28; Telcor and Cultural Broadcasting Inc.; NTN Radio – owner of Channel 69; New Guyana Company Limited-owner of The Mirror newspaper; Rudolph Grant; Wireless Connection; Hits and Jams Entertainment; Alfro Alphonso and Sons; Haslyn Graham and Little Rock Television Station. E-Networks Inc and Quark Communications Inc were also named as the Respondents.According to court documents signed by Publisher of Kaieteur News, Glenn Lall, and filed by his lawyer, Roysdale Forde,Cheap NFL Jerseys China, the licences were issued under the old Post and Telegraph Act and done in bad faith, are discriminatory and not legal.The media houses and Lall said that the licences breached their legitimate expectations and constitutional rights. It pointed to an agreement dated May 5, 2003 between Jagdeo and formerOpposition Leader, Robert Corbin, where it was agreed there would be a freeze on all new commercial frequencies for radio and television until a new Broadcasting Act came into effect.Jagdeo’s exercise of his discretion to grants those licences was abused and unreasonable also. The media houses asked for court orders to quash the licences.Regarding the cable TV licences to E-Network and Quark Communications, reportedly owned by Vishok Persaud and Brian Yong respectively, friends of the former President, the media houses also want these to be quashed on the same grounds.Valmiki Singh, head of the NFMU, was also asked to produce a statement to the court of all available radio, television and cable frequencies in Guyana.Lall and GMPA, in asking for the court to issue an order for TV and radio broadcast licences to be granted to them, also want a declaration that the frequency spectrum is a national resource.They are also asking in excess of $1M for aggravated damages and an unspecified amount for exemplary damages.In the affidavit supporting the constitutional challenge, Lall said in December 2008 he applied to Prime Minister Samuel Hinds to operate a cable TV network; a radio station and a TV station.Veteran journalist, Enrico Woolford, of Capitol News, also filed a similar court action.BUDGET CUTSBack in 2012 the Parliamentary Opposition which had the majority in the House, slashed the budget by $21B, prompting the Government to take legal action on the basis that the Opposition has no power to cut the budget.The Chief Justice in a preliminary ruling had said that the National Assembly cannot cut the budget and that the Finance Minister has the authority to allocate monies as needed. But the Opposition again in 2013, despite the ruling, slashed over $30B from the estimates, prompting a return to the court for a final ruling.On June 19, 2013, a decision was taken by Chief Justice Ian Chang to dismiss the Opposition Leader, as well as Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh from the case, on the grounds that as Members of Parliament (MPs), the constitution provides them with immunity. Granger has since sought to waive his immunity in an appeal.Come January 13, 2014 when the matter will be heard, Justices James Bovell-Drakes and Rishi Persaud will decide on Granger’s appeal.On that date, the Leader of the Opposition will know whether he will be allowed to be heard in the 2012 Budget Cut court case, which is being held in abeyance pending the course of the appeal.Attorney General Anil Nandlall who represents the Government had argued that Granger’s immunity as an MP prohibits any participation in legal proceedings. Granger’s attorney Basil Williams had however, argued that his client was willing to waive his immunity.Nandlall disagreed with the Opposition Leader’s claim that he has a right to waive his immunity,Wholesale Jerseys From China, arguing that it is not immunity but a prohibition which could expose all other Parliamentarians. The AG stated that for the Opposition Leader to relinquish his rights to immunity, legislation has to be passed, amending the current law