‘PRESIDENT SHOULDN’T SET JUDGES PERKS’

By GRACE CHAILE LESOETSA  CONSTITUTIONAL lawyer John Sangwa has petitioned the Constitutional Court seeking a declaration that the President should not prescribe the emolument of the Judges.  Mr Sangwa wants the Judiciary to formulate its own regulations prescribing the prerequisite and other conditions of service of Judges. He states that Article 122 provides for the functional independence of the Judiciary. He seeks an order of mandamus directed to and compel Minister of Finance to put in place, within three months or such period as the court may deem appropriate from the date of the order, measures satisfactory to the Judiciary. He stated that this will ensure that the Judiciary is financially independent and becomes a self-accounting institution in line with Article 123 (1) of the Constitution and is adequately funded in every financial year in line with Article 123 (2) of the Constitution. Mr Sangwa in his petition filed yesterday into the ConCourt also wants a declaration that section 3 of the Act to the extent that it vests authority in the President to prescribe  the emolument of the Judges is ultra vires Article 122 (3) and 123 (10 of the Constitution and therefore null and void. He also wants section 12 (1) of the Act that by extent that it confers upon the President, by statutory instrument, to make regulations for the better carrying out of the provisions of the Act is ultra-vires Article 122 (3) and 123 (1) of the Constitution and therefore null and void. And also that section 12 (2) of the Act to an extent which confers authority on the President, by Statutory instrument, to make Regulations prescribing the perquisites and other conditions of service of judges including but not limited to car loans, housing allowance, non-private practice allowance, funeral assistance, travelling on duty is ultra-vires Articles 122 (3) and Article 123n (1) of the Constitution and therefore null and void.