After learning that judges had previously been paid more without parliamentary approval, members of the National Assembly got into a heated argument Tuesday during the deliberation stage of the Judicial Officers’ Condition of Service Bill 2025.
The original goal of the law was to ratify the June-authorized pay hikes for Supreme Court, High Court, and Court of Appeal judges retroactively. The Minister of Justice and the Attorney General indicated, however, that the administration had removed the retroactive provision.
“My statement is we are no longer seeking a retrospective course in this bill. We want the bill to be considered on its face value. If it is approved, it will come to life at the same time that normal bills that you pass here come to life. Whatever happened before the date the bill will be passed will be regularized using other means other than the bill, because we are
seeking a retrospective clause in order to regularize what has happened before the bill is passed. We are no longer speaking that we respect Parliament’s powers,” the minister said.
Concerns regarding disparities in pay records and the ambiguity surrounding payments to magistrates and other court employees were voiced by Hon. Almami Gibba, Member for Foni Kansala. He emphasized that openness and adherence to the constitution must govern the process, even as he acknowledged the necessity of just recompense in the judiciary.
Instead of concentrating on payments that have already been made, the Speaker asked members to pay attention to the bill’s provisions for future judicial salaries. The purpose of the bill before us is to establish the future structure of judicial remuneration. He suggested that concerns about payments made before parliamentary approval be handled separately.
The president’s unilateral move to authorize wage hikes was harshly attacked by a number of parliamentarians, including Hon. Sulayman Saho (Badibu Central) and Hon. Alhagie S. Darboe (Brikama North), who called it unconstitutional.
Our current issue is that a constitutional infringement has already occurred, and the Parliament is responsible for upholding the Constitution. Therefore, we cannot begin this process if the executive or the ministry went around making increments on their own. Saho contended, “They were found in contempt.”
“It is verified that the payment was authorized by the president and implemented in June,” Darboe continued. “What authority did the president have to grant that approval prior to the National Assembly’s consent? Therefore, the minister cannot just advise us to disregard this.
Notwithstanding the differences, the Assembly continued to discuss the bill, which, if approved, will set the standard for future judge compensation.
