Latest update January 12th, 2025 3:54 AM
Latest News
- Weak governance often results in failed efforts to transform wealth to prosperity – Natural Resource Governance Institute
- Jagdeo was involved in every aspect of Exxon deal – Glenn Lall
- Israel steps up Gaza attacks amid renewed ceasefire push
- Gov’t to seek loan to build Corentyne River Bridge – Jagdeo
- Over a dozen Guyanese write US EXIM Bank for Gas-to-Energy documents
Court will hear arguments in case challenging COVID-19 measures in January
Kaieteur News – The trial in the matter filed by three trade unions challenging Government’s COVID-19 Emergency Measures will commence on January 20, 2022.Chief Justice Roxane George- Wiltshire, SC scheduled timelines for attorneys to file their submission during a virtual hearing for the proceedings on Thursday.
The case was filed on behalf of the Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU), the Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU), and the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC). The unions, collectively, represent thousands of public service employees.During the session, attorney Darren Wade appeared on behalf of Dawn Gardener, Vice President of the GPSU while Deputy Solicitor General, Debra Kumar and attorney, Chevy Devonish appeared on behalf of Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall SC who is the State’s legal representative. The attorneys were instructed to have all their written submissions and supporting documents filed by January 15, 2022. As such, the trial will begin on January 20, 2022 at 10:00 am.
Last September, the unions approached the court seeking an interim injunction forcing the State to bear the cost for regular COVID-19 testing for employees of the State until the court determines an application to the legality of the Government’s COVID-19 Emergency Measures published in the Official Gazette.
However, Justice Fidela Corbin-Lincoln had denied two interim injunctions against the Government’s vaccination policy which were being sought by the Unions. The Unions had sought an injunction preventing the State from implementing the requirement that public servants show proof of vaccination against the Coronavirus or produce a recent negative PCR test result at their own expense.
It was reported that the court action was filed as a result of the new COVID-19 policy, “no vaccine, no entry, ” which resulted in unvaccinated workers, who fail to provide a weekly negative PCR test, being denied entry into their places of work.
Firstly, the unions are asking the Court to declare that the health emergency that was declared by President David Granger exceeded his authority when he issued the first COVID-19 emergency measure back in March 2020. Following the Presidential declaration by the former President, President Irfaan Ali, after being sworn in, in August of last year, not only continued the said declaration but enhanced it.
However, it is being contended in the court document that the President, along with his Minister of Health, did not contact/consult with the Central Board of Health for advice and recommendations as is required by the Constitution. As such, the document stated that the Presidential declaration amounts to an unconstitutional delegation of the President’s powers and infringes on the Constitution.
It is also being contended that there was an improper delegation of powers. The lawyer wants the Court to declare that the emergency measures issued are invalid, and the Gazetted orders quashed since it is believed that they were unconstitutional in the first place.
At the initial hearing of the matter in September, the AG argued that the injunctive reliefs that were being sought in the application cannot be granted against the State.
As it relates to the laws and facts of the case, Nandlall said that the court ought not to grant the interim declaration being sought by the applicants against the March 16, 2020, directions of the president’s implementation of the COVID-19 protocols and guidelines. He cited Section 16 (6) of the State Liability and Proceedings Act. Among other things, the AG said that according to Section 16 of the said act “the court shall not in any civil proceedings grant any injunction or make any order against an officer of the State if the effect of granting the injunction or making the order would be to give any relief against the State which would not have been obtained in proceedings against the State.”
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Jagdeo’s press conferences are about grievance rather than governance
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- When it comes to political irony, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo has ascended to a position... more
Clarifying misconceptions about the Panama Canal
Sir Ronald Sanders (Antigua and Barbuda’s Ambassador to the US and the OAS) By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News–... more
Weekend Cartoon
