Kenyan court blocks government's Ebola quarantine facility…
1 reactions
Kenyan court blocks government's Ebola quarantine facility on constitutional grounds . What does the continent think about courts checking executive public health powers?
Kenyan here.
A few hours ago judge temporarily blocked our government from receiving Ebola-exposed persons into a quarantine facility. The main gist being it was established without public participation, legal framework, or transparent health protocols. There's also a Kenya-US government agreement behind this, which has added a political dimension locally.
The constitutional argument against the facility is straightforward .You cannot bypass due process and rebrand it as public health emergency response.
However locally the conversation is not as straightforward.
Pro-government voices support it unconditionally. Opposition voices oppose it unconditionally.
Thus what I'm genuinely trying to understand is the broader principle: should courts have the power to temporarily block executive public health measures when due process hasn't been followed?
And this is not new . Africa has seen this before (COVID-era lockdowns, quarantine facilities, emergency health declarations that conveniently expanded state power beyond the health crisis itself)
Did our governments get that balance right? And are courts the right check on that power or does judicial intervention in an active health threat create more danger than it prevents?
Curious what this community thinks.
#local
Kenyan here.
A few hours ago judge temporarily blocked our government from receiving Ebola-exposed persons into a quarantine facility. The main gist being it was established without public participation, legal framework, or transparent health protocols. There's also a Kenya-US government agreement behind this, which has added a political dimension locally.
The constitutional argument against the facility is straightforward .You cannot bypass due process and rebrand it as public health emergency response.
However locally the conversation is not as straightforward.
Pro-government voices support it unconditionally. Opposition voices oppose it unconditionally.
Thus what I'm genuinely trying to understand is the broader principle: should courts have the power to temporarily block executive public health measures when due process hasn't been followed?
And this is not new . Africa has seen this before (COVID-era lockdowns, quarantine facilities, emergency health declarations that conveniently expanded state power beyond the health crisis itself)
Did our governments get that balance right? And are courts the right check on that power or does judicial intervention in an active health threat create more danger than it prevents?
Curious what this community thinks.
#local
1
| 3,000 mlx | |
| 2 | |
| 1 |