Moroccan Judges Protest Government’s Unilateral Decree on Allowances

– byBladi.net · 2 min read
Moroccan Judges Protest Government's Unilateral Decree on Allowances

Judges are angry. They have manifested it by the outright rejection of the decree setting their allowances. According to them, the text does not meet their expectations, as it does not respect any criteria of objectivity.

The scale of allowances that the government intends to introduce as part of a draft decree to be adopted next Thursday is not to the liking of the judges. They accuse the government of having prepared this decree and set these allowances without their collaboration. Thus, for the judges, these allowances are set in a "unilateral" manner and are "unfair".

To express its anger, the Judges’ Club held an extraordinary meeting last Saturday, reports the daily Assabah. After being outraged by the government’s approach, the Judges’ Club stated that these allowances "in no way correspond to the nature or scope of the mission assigned to them, let alone the principle of the independence of the judiciary". In plain terms, these are "too meager" allowances, all the more so as they are gross amounts and therefore subject to withholding at source for income tax, details the same source based on the statements of the Judges’ Club.

What is "surprising" according to the judges is that this text "deals with certain aspects of the profession that only those who practice it are capable of mastering". Other intolerable actions of the government according to the judges is its decision to make the cumulation of certain allowances impossible. This is the case, in particular, of the allowances and bonuses for supervision and administrative management which cannot, according to the draft decree, be cumulated with the allowance for on-call duty, for example, notes Assabah. To all this is added the method adopted to calculate the lump-sum allowance for transport and housing, as well as the one set according to the rank of the judges.

At the very least, according to the club, the government could have respected the principle of equity which would have meant that "those of lower rank benefit from higher allowances, instead of favoring the higher-ranking judges". In the end, the judges rejected the "illogical amounts" proposed by the government and which do not meet any criteria of objectivity, calling on it to revise its work by trying to make them collaborate.