The exercise of emergency powers
Emergency powers could be exercised by a government in a time of war or in an emergency by means of a proclamation from the President. The initial period during which these powers could be exercised is 14 days beginning from the date of declaration by a presidential proclamation. The duration of the period during which the government could exercise emergency powers could be extended by another proclamation. Alternatively, the period of the emergency could be extended by a resolution of the National Assembly for a further six months from the date on which the proclamation was due to expire. Where a state of emergency is proclaimed by the President, the proclamation has to be laid before the National Assembly, according to Article 150(3)(a) of the Constitution. That article also provides that if, as is the case now, the National Assembly is not due to meet within five days because it has been adjourned, it must be summoned to meet within five days to allow the proclamation to be laid before it. During the state of emergency, the power would be granted to suspend fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 139, 140(2) or 143, and Articles 145 - 149 inclusive, of the Constitution. Article 140 provides for the protection of the right to personal liberty; Article 140(2) provides for protection from slavery and forced labour; Article 143 provides protection against arbitrary search and forced entry; Articles 145 - 149 provide for freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of movement and protection from all forms of discrimination. With the proclamation of a state of emergency a set of regulations is issued, which would allow, for example, the government to use the security forces to man whatever support services it deems necessary. Exactly which powers the government will choose to exercise will depend on the regulations it promulgates.
Dr Jeffrey to consult GMA on Medical Council reconstitution by Alim Hassim Health Minister, Dr Henry Jeffrey, says he will consult with the Guyana Medical Association (GMA) on the reconstitution of the Medical Council of Guyana (MCG), following a recent court ruling in the GMA's favour. Chief Justice Desiree Bernard earlier this month quashed a decision by Dr Jeffrey to reject two nominees put up by the GMA for the MCG. The Chief Justice had said that while the conduct of the minister was not illegal, it was "unfair and procedurally improper". She also said that Dr Jeffrey had failed to respond to the GMA's request for reasons for the rejection of two of their nominees. In an invited comment on Thursday, Dr Jeffrey said, "All the court said is that I am supposed to consult them further and give them some reasons. I am going to consult them further and give them some reasons why I left out the two names." Dr Jeffrey said he has been communicating with the GMA on the matter and that he had written to the association asking for a meeting to discuss the issue. He has since received a response, but has not been able to study it. "But, essentially, I will do precisely what the court said. I will give them some reasons, which [the court said] I didn't do. I think that the reasons were inherent in the situation itself, but maybe I need to spell it out," the minister stated. On October 30, last year, the GMA submitted to Dr Jeffrey a list of six names for the MCG--Drs Walter Ramsahoye, Hughley Hanoman, Frank Beckles, Carl Hanoman, Monica Sagala and Hardat Persaud. On January 13, this year, Dr Jeffrey wrote to the GMA rejecting the names of Drs Ramsahoye and Hughley Hanoman. He substituted their names with those of Drs Janice Imhoff and Faizul Sattaur. On January 14, last, GMA president, Dr Carl Hanoman, wrote to Dr Jeffrey requesting reasons for the rejection of the two names and the criteria used in selecting the other two doctors. The GMA claimed the minister never responded. Dr Jeffrey told Stabroek News on Thursday that he had nothing against these two doctors whose names he rejected. "I have reasons for wanting them off the Medical Council and my reason was that one person was there for 12 years and the other one was there for ten years," he said. The minister said he believes "some fresh people" are needed on the Medical Council. If there are new doctors on the council "other things might start to happen in the council". All through the court case, Dr Jeffrey told Stabroek News, he had left it to the GMA to decide which two doctors they would suggest to replace the two he had taken off. Meanwhile, asked whether he was concerned about the long absence of a much needed medical council, the minister said, "I am always concerned when we don't have something that we are supposed to have."
|