Remuneration is a great big word that means what you are paid, but as we all know what you are paid and what you get to take home and two different things. So the truth is no one is cutting the pay of judges rather they are simply reducing what they get to take home.
Surely the constitutional provision ” The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.” is in respect of a judge’s gross pay and provided that it is not a measure specifically targeted at judges then a general increase in taxation or levy should not breach the constitution. And is the state the only client that can’t source a second legal opinion outside of the AG’s office? Especially when there is the potential for a conflict of interest given that some AG’s have gone on to serve in the higher courts.
I thought the spirit of the constitution was to protect “a judge” from being targetted by the Government. The fact that we are targetting all judges surely means that a judge is not being singled out.
You’re correct and in fact we’re not even targeting all judges. We targeting everyone who works for the state who earns over a certain amount.
Here’s my solution to the problem:
http://mopti.livejournal.com/114854.html