In what ways could the Executive arm of government interfere with the independence of the Judiciary?

Ways the Executive May Interfere with the Independence of the Judiciary

The independence of the judiciary means that judges should decide cases freely, without fear or favour. However, the executive arm can undermine this independence in the following ways:

1. Appointment of judges: Where the executive appoints judges, it may appoint only loyalists or party sympathisers who will favour the government in their judgements.
2. Control over promotion and transfer: The executive can use promotion, transfer or posting to reward compliant judges and punish or frustrate independent-minded ones.
3. Control of judicial finance: By controlling the budget and salaries of the judiciary, the executive can starve the courts of funds and make judges financially dependent and vulnerable to pressure.
4. Removal or threat of removal: The power to discipline, suspend or remove judges can be abused to intimidate them into giving favourable decisions.
5. Refusal to enforce court judgements: Since the executive controls the police and coercive machinery, it may refuse to obey or enforce judgements that go against it, thereby weakening the courts.
6. Use of executive orders, decrees and ouster clauses: The executive may issue decrees or laws with ouster clauses that remove certain matters from the jurisdiction of the courts.
7. Intimidation and harassment: Judges may be threatened, arrested, detained or their homes invaded by security agents to force them to decide cases in the government's favour.
8. Prerogative of mercy: By pardoning offenders convicted by the courts, the executive can nullify the decisions of the judiciary.

To protect judicial independence, judges' salaries should be charged on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, their tenure and conditions of service guaranteed, and appointments made through a Judicial Service Commission.