End court strikes permanently

In this democratic State, how far can the fundamental rights provided in the Constitution be violated, limited, implemented and defended by the government without saying ‘it was beyond our control’?

Are we really a democratic State where citizens’ rights and freedoms are respected, protected and fulfilled?

How do we address conflicts between individual rights and public rights?

What prompts these questions is the recent strike of Judiciary support staff which has caused the courts to be closed for three weeks.

The protestors want government to give them housing allowances as part of harmonising benefits within the judicial system. This was legitimately made to the government, but to no avail.

Legal as it may be, this strike has had a great impact on the rights and freedoms of Malawians, especially access justice.

The checks and balances of the government by the judiciary were no longer in place. Personal and national security was compromised.

The rights of accused persons to be brought before the court within 48 hours were undermined, police cells were overcrowded with suspects and victims of criminal activities were denied assistance.

Some debtors deliberately postponed the payment of their debts.

Many services offered by the Judiciary came to a standstill. Essentially, the operations of the whole independent arm of government collapsed.

This labour dispute, therefore, is between individual and public interests. The burning issue is: how we can balance the private interest of employees who are fighting for their entitlements and the public interest to access justice and enjoyment of rights and freedoms?

Where there is a conflict between the private rights and public interest, the public interest prevails.

However, human rights activist would say all rights are equal.

As such, the labour demands by the support staff need to be respected and it is also in the public interest that the rights of the support staff are fulfilled.

We should perhaps invoke the cost-benefit analysis by first questioning the necessity of the demands for housing allowances compared to access to justice and related rights.

The workers have survived for a period without these allowances. One may say they could do without these allowances.

But smooth operation of the Judiciary cannot be underestimated. Even these support staff need the same courts to enforce their rights. There can be no government without the Judiciary and a non-operational Judiciary is a non-operational government.

At all cost, this issue was supposed to be handled with urgency by all concerned parties bearing in mind all those human rights and freedoms.

A compromise was a better option even if it meant a provision for skeleton staff to keep the courts operational.

Our law stipulates against a strike for bodies that provides essential services. That is why the support staff ware expected to provide skeleton staff.

As much as I sympathise with them, the parties involved are the same that are well versed with issues of settling disputes, compromise, human rights and freedoms and labour disputes.

The major concern is that this problem has only re-surfaced. It was there before and we had no solution. We all saw it coming again and we did nothing to stop it.

In settling this dispute, let the parties look for permanent solutions to ensure Malawians enjoy their rights and freedoms without any restraint. Otherwise, the battle between the government and Judiciary support staff shall never end.

As one former legislator advised, we should have an Act of Parliament that regulates the conditions of service for these workers. As they claim, they serve the justice system as well. n