Sir, – The meaning of Article 35.5 of the Constitution (“The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office”) remains a vexed question. What we have at present is a press statement made with certain misgivings by Chief Justice John Murray and published in the summer of 2009. The statement refers without prejudice to advice given to the then government by its attorney general. A citizen of this Republic is free in these circumstances to ask for a little more, say a judgment in open court on the meaning of Article 35.5.
The present Government’s plan is to have the sovereign people make a decision about judicial pay. It will be no easy task to come up with a wording fair to the judiciary, yet likely to win a majority vote in a referendum. In any case, making anyone’s pay conditional on the support of the people is hardly a wise measure.
It is less than safe to accept without more ado an interpretation of an Article of the Constitution uttered by one advocate, even should the advocate be attorney general. In reality, the fact that under the Constitution an attorney general addresses a cabinet in complete secrecy is especially disquieting.
It was not immediately clear to me that Chief Justice Murray’s press statement might have been made without prejudice, though I now incline to think so. This is certainly a complex matter where the possibilities of misunderstanding are legion. I appeal for a superior court judgment to shine a strong light into the darkness. – Yours, etc,