The Legal Studies Department at Maysan Law Firm and Legal Consultations said the decision issued by the Minister of Health, Dr. Khaled Al-Saeed banning the administration of pharmacies on non-Kuwaiti pharmacists with a license is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution, and must be reconsidered.

The partner in Maysan Law Firm, attorney Dr Hussein Al-Abdullah, said the decision violates the constitution, as the amendments should have been issued through a law and not by ministerial decisions, reports a local Arabic daily.

Moreover, in addition to that this amendment violates the principles of justice, equal opportunities and the right to property and affects previous legal positions, in addition to violating the right of public health because its implementation will lead to the closure of dozens of pharmacies just because it is not possible for license holders to abide by the decision, which will enter into force in three months time since its issuance, given that there are no more than 700 pharmacies in the country, which will put to test the legal and realistic harmonization of this decision.

Dr Al-Abdullah indicated that the minister’s decision exceeded the limits of his competence and introduced new texts that could not be attributed to the Pharmacy Law, thus exceeding the limits set by Article (72) of the Constitution for the executive regulations, and violating the right of the legislative authority, as the text in Article (50) of the Constitution stipulates that “The system of government is based on the separation of powers with their cooperation in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and none of them may relinquish all or part of its jurisdiction stipulated in this Constitution.”

He pointed out that there are issues that the constitution has confiscated by an express text so that the legislation in them is by a law issued by the legislative authority, and it is not permissible to organize, amend its provisions or repeal them with an inferior legislative tool, otherwise it would be in violation of the constitution.

He said that the constitution guaranteed the sanctity of private property and did not allow it to be violated except with an exception, and its organization to support its social function was not permissible except by a law by which the legislator balances the rights of its owners with what he deems to be the most important interests (Articles 16, 17, 18 of the constitution).

Read Today's News TODAY... on our Telegram Channel click here to join and receive all the latest updates