Judges talk tough as new perks delay

Frustration has crept into the Judiciary, with judges accusing the Legislature and the Executive of feet-dragging on the bench’s proposed new perks, Nation on Sunday has learnt.

Judiciary spokesperson Joseph Chigona—while not directly validating some judges’ push for tougher action to frog-jump government into implementing their proposed Conditions of Service (CoS)—said authorities have dragged their feet for too long.

Said Chigona in an interview on Wednesday: “We are still waiting for the response; we are not yet communicated to. But I think it is a long time ago when we made the submission. Maybe it is a long process. But then [members of] Parliament and [civil servants] have had their salaries and employment benefits increased.”

Members of Parliament (MPs) awarded themselves an average of 82 percent perks increase effective last month, Cabinet ministers received an 80 percent jump in allowances last August and civil servants have had two package increases in one year, while the judges’ working conditions have stalled.

Judicial officers’ salaries and other employment benefits were last reviewed in 2009 and new ones should have been approved by July 1 2012 since by law, these perks are supposed to be revised every three years.

And the judicial officers’ patience is wearing thin.

Two senior judges who spoke to Nation on Sunday this week on condition of anonymity said momentum is building within the Judiciary for them to take “drastic measures” that can force government’s hand on the issue.

Asked whether “drastic measures” means they are considering a “strike” or “go-slow”, the two judges refused to spell out negotiating strategy that is not formally endorsed.

One of the judicial senior officers said: “We are giving them [the Legislature and the Executive] a benefit of doubt. We have options we can take, including drastic ones to force implementation of our new perks, which was supposed to be done in July last year.

“We deserve them just like they [legislators and Cabinet ministers] have been doing to increase theirs. We always wondered why it should be only us to bear the brunt of the economic situation in the country when we are equal human beings.

“You would agree with me that when it comes to the Executive or the Legislature increasing their salary and benefits, it becomes the only rare moment in Parliament when MPs on the government side and the opposition show exceptional union and they agree within minutes to increase their perks, but always tend to drag their feet when it comes to us.”

The judges— according to the revised Conditions of Service for Judicial Officers—among other things, want their fuel perks to jump by an average of 120 percent, settlement allowance to increase by 1 500 percent and furniture allowances to rise by 60 percent.

They also want the Chief Justice to have a retirement package that is almost equal to that of a retired State vice-president.

The Judiciary also wants the Chief Justice to be entitled to three vehicles for official and private use “provided that one of the three vehicles shall be a Mercedes Benz.”

For the Justices of Appeal, judges and the registrar, the proposal is that they be given two vehicles, one of which should be a Mercedes Benz, among other entitlements.

Finance Minister Ken Lipenga, in a previous interview, declined to comment on the issue of judges’ perks in general, but wondered how, at a time Capital Hill wants to get rid of Mercedes Benz in the Executive as part of an austerity drive given how expensive these vehicles are to run, another arm of government appeared oblivious to the efforts.

In an interview on Tuesday, Public Appointments and Declaration of Assets Committee of Parliament, which approves proposed perks for the Judiciary, said it was still consulting on the matter.

The committee’s chairperson Nick Masebo said his group is yet to meet Chief Secretary in the Office of the President and Cabinet (OPC) Hawa Ndilowe for her input.

Masebo said his committee is consulting various stakeholders and could not tell when the committee would come up with a position on the matter.

He noted that the 2013/14 national budget was passed and issues of salaries have budgetary implications; hence, the wide consultations his committee is making.

“We have not arrived at any position yet. We have consulted the Treasury, the Public Service Commission and others. It is our determination to make our position on this matter as soon as possible. There is an area we want to interact with the Chief Secretary on before we come up with a position,” said Masebo.

But one of the judges we talked to wondered why the Legislature is not communicating to the Judiciary on progress months after the submission of the proposal for perks increment.

The officer said: “In all fairness, communication is very important than to leave people in suspense. We are not happy about that, we needed to be communicated to, even if it meant just to advise us on the progress being made.”

Dean of Law at Chancellor College Mwiza Nkhata said in an interview on Wednesday that while there is nothing wrong with the parliamentary committee consulting, the one-year period the Judiciary has had to wait for their new perks is too long a time.

Nkhata said the legislators have in between approved a lot of things, including their own remuneration. He said it, therefore, does not make sense that the Judiciary’s review of their conditions of service, which was supposed to be done last July, should take this long.

He said the law must be respected and that government was supposed to do things within the period the law stipulates.