Constitution’s covid19 test

THE PRIME Minister’s illness, should it persist, raises a constitutional quandary.

Dr Rowley tested positive for covid19 on April 6, April 12 and April 19.

If this continues, questions must be asked and, ultimately, addressed by President Paula-Mae Weekes and legislators over the parameters of the law as it relates to the novel situation of a prime minister suffering from covid19.

There is no suggestion of any need to invoke section 78 of the Constitution. That section empowers the President, of her own volition, to appoint an acting prime minister in the event of the PM being unable to function.

Dr Rowley has continued to work from quarantine in Tobago. The details of the PM’s diary have not been released, but it is known he has participated in virtual meetings, mourned the death of a colleague, and reshuffled Cabinet from Blenheim.

Be that as it may, Dr Rowley’s focus should be on resting and making a full recovery. That process of recovery is not likely to be helped by his remaining actively involved in the political fray.

The tit-for-tat between Government and Opposition over the PM’s illness is not surprising. However, judging from the heat of the language being used, it may well turn out to be more detrimental to Dr Rowley than anyone else.

It is not to be forgotten that the Prime Minister is also doing double duty.

In addition to leading Cabinet, he is chairman of Caricom during a once-in-a-lifetime crisis in the form of the eruptions of La Soufriere. That crisis has come atop the pandemic.

“Trying hard to cope with the many challenges as they come,” Dr Rowley said in response to a tragic car crash in his constituency on Sunday.

On Monday, the PM appointed Stuart Young Minister of Energy, but also kept Mr Young as Minister in the Office of the Prime Minister. Mr Young has often attended events alongside the PM in this capacity, but the division of the workload between the two is not well understood.

Also not well understood are the treatments to which the PM is currently subject and their effect, if any.

What is clear is the Constitution never envisioned a situation like this.

And the PM’s recovery is complicated and possibly delayed by any burden he might assume while in isolation.

At the moment, the PM cannot face parliamentary oversight, through PM’s Questions. And the performance of his most sensitive functions may not square well with virtual communications.

An acting PM is appointed whenever a PM leaves the country. When that happens, in this day and age the PM remains capable of doing his job remotely, yet the acting appointment is still made.

Officials must now consider whether this situation is any different.