By Abubacarr

Copyright standard

A number of lawmakers yesterday criticised a recent pay rise for judges describing it as a unilateral approval by the executive without the involvement of the National Assembly.Although Finance Minister Seedy Keita had clarified that the pay rise is coming from the budget already approved for the Judiciary, some NAMs said it was a violation ahead of the passing of the Judicial Officers Condition of Services Bill currently before the Assembly. The NAMs’ query came about when a letter accompanying the bill read in the Assembly, made the following revelations: “Please note that the revised pay scale contained in the attached schedule [to the bill] reflects the remuneration structure approved by the President His Excellency Adama Barrow and has been effective since 1st June 2025. In view of this the Ministry of Justice is currently considering the inclusion of a retrospective clause in the [Judicial Officers Conditions of Service Bill 2025] to give full legal effect to the revised pay scale as from its effective date. Grateful if this revised schedule could be duly noted and incorporated into the legislative process accordingly”.These revelations triggered complaints from several lawmakers who expressed disappointment over what they called the president’s ‘unilateral’ salary increment for judges “without respect for the parliament and due process.”“I don’t expect that the custodians of the constitution, would be the ones violating the law,” opposition Serekunda West lawmaker Madi Ceesay said.He questioned the urgency behind the bill alleging that it has failed to go to committee stages as agreed upon by the plenary in line with the Standing Orders.Omar Jammeh, Member for Janjangbureh accused the minister of justice of misleading the parliament over the matter and asked for him to clarify the revised schedule and explain why his ministry intends to include a retroactive clause in the bill.In response, Minister Dawda Jallow said: “When we wrote [the letter addressed to Assembly]we were trying to negotiate and that is why we said we are considering the possibility of a retroactive clause. We realised it would not go that way, so, we are no longer seeking a retrospective clause in this bill. We want the bill to be considered on face value and if it is approved, it will come to life on the due time that normal bills go to life.”The minister added that “whatever happened before the date it is passed, will be regularised using other means” other than the bill.“We respect parliament’s powers. If the bill is passed as it is, whatever happened before will be dealt with appropriately. So, the issue of retroactive clauses should not be a contention anymore,” Minster Jallow told NAMs.The Speaker, Fabakary Tombong Jatta, accepted the minister’s explanation, and urged lawmakers to proceed in considering the bill since they are vested with the authority to accept or decline the president’s increment and determine when it should take effect.“Approval has been given by the president and this has happened since June. We know that this is naturally incorrect. It is wrong but this Assembly has the authority to determine when this becomes effective. We approve it and give it an effective date and any other thing outside that is irregular, that is a parliamentary process and we can go about it anytime,” Speaker Jatta said.Despite concerns raised by some members regarding the Speaker’s stance, the Assembly went ahead to consider the bill with some amendments and is expected to be tabled for third reading on Monday September 29.