AR threatens legal steps over rent board
Affirmative Repositioning (AR) youth activists have threatened to take legal action against the government unless it reverses a decision to put on hold the appointment of a rent control board until the tabling of a new bill.
In a letter sent to the minister of industrialisation, trade and development this week, the AR described last week's announcement by the government as illegal and unconstitutional. The letter, which was copied to the ombudsman, the National Council and the Legal Assistance Centre, stated: “It is indeed shocking and disheartening that notwithstanding the existence of the ordinance, the government (the executive branch), has sadly and unlawfully decided that it will not implement the ordinance …”
The AR set a deadline of 4 March for the government to reverse its decision, else “we will approach the High Court for an order in terms of which government is compelled to fulfil its duty”.
The letter said the decision “created practical prejudice to the thousands of young people who continue to suffer economically and incur hardships in their livelihoods due to the relentless and capitalist rent lords who dictate exorbitant amounts of rent and rental conditions [sic].”
Information and communication technology minister Tjekero Tweya last week motivated the sudden turn-around on appointing a rent control board by saying that the 1977 law had become obsolete and would “render the work of the rent board of no force or effect”.
He announced that a new rent bill was on the cards which would replace the current legislation. Until that time, it would be impractical to implement a rent control board.
In response, the AR argued that this decision was unconstitutional and illegal and should be promptly reversed.
The AR argues that the constitutional task of government is to “execute and implement laws” while parliament is tasked with the creation and enactment of laws.
“Government can therefore not stay or park a law which creates obligations on the basis that same will be repealed and a new bill will be enacted …” the letter states.
It says the government cannot refuse to implement an existing law that has not been declared unlawful by the courts. Declaring an existing law unconstitutional or impossible to implement “amounts to an unlawful usurpation of the functions of the judiciary”, AR argues.
Moreover, the letter states that the government cannot choose which laws or ordinances to enforce because that would be contrary to the provisions of the constitution and the principle of separation of powers.
AR referred back to a letter dated August 2016, in which the government had requested AR to nominate people to be appointed to the rent board.
That letter contained advice from the attorney-general in which he pointed out that the rent board should be operational while the ministry drafted a comprehensive policy on rent.
JANA-MARI SMITH
In a letter sent to the minister of industrialisation, trade and development this week, the AR described last week's announcement by the government as illegal and unconstitutional. The letter, which was copied to the ombudsman, the National Council and the Legal Assistance Centre, stated: “It is indeed shocking and disheartening that notwithstanding the existence of the ordinance, the government (the executive branch), has sadly and unlawfully decided that it will not implement the ordinance …”
The AR set a deadline of 4 March for the government to reverse its decision, else “we will approach the High Court for an order in terms of which government is compelled to fulfil its duty”.
The letter said the decision “created practical prejudice to the thousands of young people who continue to suffer economically and incur hardships in their livelihoods due to the relentless and capitalist rent lords who dictate exorbitant amounts of rent and rental conditions [sic].”
Information and communication technology minister Tjekero Tweya last week motivated the sudden turn-around on appointing a rent control board by saying that the 1977 law had become obsolete and would “render the work of the rent board of no force or effect”.
He announced that a new rent bill was on the cards which would replace the current legislation. Until that time, it would be impractical to implement a rent control board.
In response, the AR argued that this decision was unconstitutional and illegal and should be promptly reversed.
The AR argues that the constitutional task of government is to “execute and implement laws” while parliament is tasked with the creation and enactment of laws.
“Government can therefore not stay or park a law which creates obligations on the basis that same will be repealed and a new bill will be enacted …” the letter states.
It says the government cannot refuse to implement an existing law that has not been declared unlawful by the courts. Declaring an existing law unconstitutional or impossible to implement “amounts to an unlawful usurpation of the functions of the judiciary”, AR argues.
Moreover, the letter states that the government cannot choose which laws or ordinances to enforce because that would be contrary to the provisions of the constitution and the principle of separation of powers.
AR referred back to a letter dated August 2016, in which the government had requested AR to nominate people to be appointed to the rent board.
That letter contained advice from the attorney-general in which he pointed out that the rent board should be operational while the ministry drafted a comprehensive policy on rent.
JANA-MARI SMITH
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article