>> Read the full position paper
Basic Law Bill: Remuneration of Public Officeholders (Legislative Amendments) forms part of a broader series of initiatives aimed at undermining the standing of the judiciary. It seeks to standardize judges’ remuneration with that of other public officeholders, thereby opening the door to cutting their salaries and eliminating the existing constitutional protection against adverse changes to their terms of service. Such a situation could make judges’ economic security vulnerable to political influence and create subtle pressure on judges when ruling on politically sensitive cases.
Similarly, the proposed public committee mechanism for determining remuneration fails to ensure genuine professional independence. Its authority is a priori constrained by the legislature and the political echelon, and it is not required to operate through a transparent process or in accordance with clear constitutional principles. At the same time, equating the remuneration of officeholders across the branches of government disregards the fundamental differences between independent, long-term judicial office and political positions, and may impair the judiciary’s ability to attract highly qualified candidates and preserve its institutional stability.
Beyond these institutional concerns, the position paper argues that raising the issue of judges’ remuneration in the current public climate forms part of a broader narrative aimed at eroding the legitimacy of the judiciary by portraying it as a privileged and detached entity. The proposed changes to the remuneration mechanism should therefore be understood not merely as a budgetary reform, but as a measure with constitutional implications that could undermine the balance among the branches of government and impair the judiciary’s ability to function independently in safeguarding the rule of law and protecting human rights.