Employers say the interpretation of state of emergency regulations a threat to businesses

Employers say the interpretation of state of emergency regulations a threat to businesses

Senior Council Raymond Heathcote arguing on behalf of the group of employers says there's no doubt that President Hage Geingob declared the COVID-19 State of Emergency with good intentions but was ill-advised ending up making irrational decisions.
The employers took Government to court to challenge the state of emergency regulations that prevent them from retrenching workers during this period.
However, Heathcote argues Geingob was ill-advised on some of the proclaimed labour regulations during the state of emergency and as a result suffered irrational mistakes.
He says President Geingob abused the constitutional power by suspending some provisions of the labour law for the purpose other than the protection of the rights of all people, including legal people such as employers.
Heathcote says the law should be considered for what it sets out and should not be abruptly interpreted or misinterpreted to suit situations or what one wants it to mean.
The president did not submit an affidavit but he and the State are represented by Minister of Labour, Utoni Nujoma's affidavit.
Heathcote says the regulations are merely to regulate how the law should be considered but not to suspend the law.
The bone of contention is whether the president acted within the law by suspending the labour law and order employees not to retrench their employees and that employees must continue to receive their pay while at home due to COVID-19 lockdown.
He says losing work is a threat but losing your company and getting liquidated due to the suspended law is equally a threat.
He argues that the emergency was declared because of the virus and not because of the loss of jobs, hence the suspension of the labour law does not address the emergency declared but create a threat.