Rad­hi­ca Sookraj

For­mer at­tor­ney gen­er­al Ramesh Lawrence Ma­haraj says at­tempts by Gov­ern­ment to in­crease the salaries of Mem­bers of Par­lia­ment and re­tired judges is an em­bar­rass­ment to MPs and un­der­mines the in­de­pen­dence of the Ju­di­cia­ry.His com­ments came as the Salaries Re­view Com­mis­sion (SRC) sought a meet­ing with Pres­i­dent An­tho­ny Car­mona to dis­cuss the con­tentious pen­sion in­creas­es. It was on­ly last year that the Gov­ern­ment moved to in­crease the salaries of the Prime Min­is­ter and MPs.

In a tele­phone in­ter­view yes­ter­day, Ma­haraj said the sidelin­ing of the SRC by the Ex­ec­u­tive in the lat­est salary hike could be seen as a "con­sti­tu­tion­al cri­sis.""The AG and the Gov­ern­ment has em­bar­rassed the Ju­di­cia­ry and MPs by hav­ing ne­go­ti­a­tions with the Ex­ec­u­tive in re­spect of terms and con­di­tions of MPs and Ju­di­cia­ry," Ma­haraj said.He not­ed that the Con­sti­tu­tion in­tend­ed to in­su­late the Ju­di­cia­ry from in­flu­ence from the Ex­ec­u­tive and "the SRC is the buffer zone be­tween the gov­ern­ment and the Ju­di­cia­ry.""The Gov­ern­ment, in en­ter­ing in­to ne­go­ti­a­tions with the Ju­di­cia­ry for bet­ter terms and con­di­tions, has em­bar­rassed the Ju­di­cia­ry. The ba­sis for the sep­a­ra­tion of pow­ers is that the Ju­di­cia­ry must be to­tal­ly in­de­pen­dent from the Ex­ec­u­tive," Ma­haraj said.

He said the re­cent salary hike gives the im­pres­sion that ju­di­cial in­de­pen­dence is now com­pro­mised.

"This is a con­sti­tu­tion­al cri­sis in which the Gov­ern­ment must im­me­di­ate­ly take steps to al­low the SRC to take over the process," he said.

Ma­haraj made it clear he was not say­ing mem­bers of the ju­di­cia­ry and re­tired judges were not en­ti­tled to bet­ter terms and con­di­tions.

"How­ev­er, the process and the pro­ce­dures used to achieve this leaves much to be de­sired. It sub­verts and un­der­mines the in­de­pen­dence of the Ju­di­cia­ry and the sep­a­ra­tion of pow­ers," he said.

Ma­haraj said the re­cent moves al­so have se­ri­ous im­pli­ca­tions for cit­i­zens.

"If a cit­i­zen de­cides to chal­lenge the Bill and it goes to Par­lia­ment, it will mean the Ju­di­cia­ry will have to de­cide a case in which it is in­volved in. This is a very se­ri­ous mat­ter," he said, adding that the Gov­ern­ment should have con­sult­ed with the Law As­so­ci­a­tion and the gen­er­al pub­lic.

"When­ev­er you are hav­ing un­prece­dent­ed in­creas­es, the mem­bers of the pub­lic and the law as­so­ci­a­tion should have a full say in it, be­cause this will have im­pli­ca­tions for oth­er sec­tors of the econ­o­my.

"What­ev­er I am say­ing, I am not be­lit­tling the role that the Ju­di­cia­ry has to play. It may be that they are en­ti­tled to bet­ter terms and con­di­tions but the process is be­ing done in an ar­bi­trary man­ner with­out con­sul­ta­tion with the in­ter­est groups, mem­bers of the pub­lic and the Law As­so­ci­a­tion," Ma­haraj said.

He said the side­step­ping the SRC must be con­demned.