COVID-19 crisis: drama heats up at assembly as lawmakers adjourn emergency session

745

By MOMODOU JARJU

Heated debate followed the tabling of a motion for the extension of a period of state of public emergency by the attorney general and minister of justice, Aboubacarr Tambadou on Thursday at the National Assembly (NA) in Banjul.

The debate later resulted in the adjournment and deferment of the minister’s motion to the Select Committee on Human Rights and Constitutional Matters to scrutinize the matter and report back to the plenary today, Friday at the NA’s chambers.

Lawmakers in a contested decision, voted twice with the majority of 21, voted for the adjournment and 11 voted against the motion, while the rest shunned to vote.

The first vote of ‘Aye’ and ‘No’ was contested by some lawmakers after the speaker of the assembly, Mariam Jack-Denton gave the verdict to the ‘Ayes’.

But upon contestation by those who said No to her verdict, Speaker Denton then accepted an observation made by Wuli West lawmaker, Sedia Jatta, by voting through hand-counting.

This was done and those who voted for the adjournment got the majority of the vote.

Notwithstanding, some lawmakers believed this procedure is improper. When a ruling is done, it cannot be revised, they argued.

Prior to the debate, Minister Tambadou moved the motion for lawmakers to approve and extend the state of public emergency for a period of ninety (90) days, effective April 3, 2020 in the whole country.

This he said is in accordance with section 34(2) of the 1997 Constitution of the republic of The Gambia.

This claim was contested by Serrekunda lawmaker, Halifa Sallah who moved the motion for the adjournment and deferment of the session.

During moving his motion, Sallah while relying on standing orders 53 (C) said, section 34, Subsection 2 of the constitution states clearly that a declaration made under this section shall lapse at the expiration of a period of seven days.

That is if the National Assembly is in session, and we are in session count from 18^th… what it means for those seven days to expire. And that’s why we should refer this to the committee to look at all the elements to see whether the law was complied with. That is the purpose of the motion,” he said.

Sallah said what is strange is that on page one, they are being told that the President declared another state of emergency dated April 3, 2020, which they are to consider and extend to a period of 90 days.

These are two proclamations, he said.

He further remarked: “It is either that the second proclamation is trying to remedy what was done initially. I don’t know how neatly this has been done, but I want our committee to look at this so that we look at the legality because there must have been a period where we did not have a state of emergency when something is null and void, but something was being implemented.”

Speaking further, Sallah pointed out the emergency act enacted since 1965 which provides for proclamation or regulations to be made, in order to exert control over people’s rights.

PDOIS secretary general said rights control as a result of the emergency must be dictated by law which Minister Tambedou knows that whatever regulations are published in the Gazette must be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.

“And that is what we need to gauge. Are these regulations reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society, that’s our duty and therefore to extend would require real scrutiny of what is put before us. So that ultimately, we’re in it together. We are in it together to fight Covid-19. But we are not in it together to restrict the rights of our people beyond what is reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society,” he said.

In his respond, Minister Tambedou maintained that the president’s proclamations were gazette.

“The proclamations have been gazetted and all we need to do is reach out to the Gambia Printing House. Maybe we should have made this available to you, but they have been gazette. But they have been gazetted. That’s the first statement of fact that I want to establish,”Tambedou said.

According to Tambedou, section 34, subsection 6 of the Constitution states that any provision of this section, that a declaration shall lapse or cease to be enforced at any particular time, shall without prejudice to the making of a further declaration under this section, whether before or after that time.

“The President had made a declaration on the 18^th and he made a further declaration on the 26th. Now, I understand the Honourable Member for Serrekunda’s concerns that between the period of the first declaration and the second declaration, there might have been a gap and whether any measures were taking to enforce the regulations issued in between that gap. Now, this is a matter of interpretation now, and that is not, with all due respect to the honorable member for Serrekunda, the province of the National Assembly. That is the responsibility of our courts,” he said.

Taking the floor again, Sallah asked Minister Tambedou to go back to Section 34 and look at where it says that a declaration made under subsection 1 may at any time be revoked by the president by proclamation which shall be published in the Gazette. So, we are simply asking our committee to look at this period which he accepts is a lacuna, he added.

“But he’s telling us that we are supposed to be the one who will go somewhere else to interpret what happened within that period, we are told seven days and the Interpretation Act is very clear on counting of days. We are not doing that now. We are not claiming to be professionals. We are saying that our committee should do that. Invite subject matter specialists to look into that matter. And why I was saying this honorable speaker, because the way the Attorney General interprets that part in terms of six, it means that the President can declare for seven days, it lapses, to come and declare again seven days, it lapses, declare seven days to eternity. Then what is the relevance of a National Assembly?” he said.

Meanwhile, Ousman Touray, Sabach Sanjal lawmaker who seconded the minister’s motion, said he has no objection to the motion because it comes at a time when the situation demands for it.

However, he raised some issues regarding the regulations outlined by the central government, which included restrictions on open market shopping and the emergency powers on essential commodities.

“All the basic commodities were listed and prices were given to those commodities, including cement and other things. Now, if these markets are closed, how will these people access them,” he queried.

Touray said if the current situation is not revised, it wouldn’t be wise for the country to succumb to a long period of public emergency of 90 days.

Nominated member, Yakumba Jaiteh observed that if they have to extend the emergency period, they also have to extend the regulations too.

“I will just before we go into the debate, depending on what the Standing Orders provide, for us to hear from the Minister of Finance himself and Minister of Health, what discussions they have had with the Minister of Justice, in the implementation of these regulations, giving the funds that are coming into the country for the fight against COVID-19. Are there any plans to bring these grants to the assembly for approval so that we can also add our voices to how we want these monies to be implemented to know what you plan,” she said.