In Zimbabwe, if the President considers that the question of the removal from office of the Chief Justice ought to be investigated, he must appoint a tribunal to inquire into the matter. All the members of the Tribunal are chosen by the President; most are judges or former judges, but the President can appoint one or more legal practitioners nominated by the Law Society. However, he does not have to do this. If the tribunal recommends that the President should refer the question of removing the judge to the JSC, the President must do this; and if the JSC recommends the judge’s removal the President must remove him or her from office. The Constitution does not provide any formal system whereby allegations of misconduct may be made by professional bodies or by members of the public. It is possible, presumably, for a complaint to be made to the JSC and for it to investigate in terms of the Judicial Service Act. It could then refer the complaint to the President or the Chief Justice. As mentioned above, the JSC is not genuinely independent, so the whole process of removing judges from office is very much in the hands of the Executive. Under the South African Constitution, a judge may be removed from office only if the JSC has found that the judge suffers from incapacity, is grossly incompetent or is guilty of gross misconduct, and if the National Assembly passes a resolution by a twothirds majority calling for the judge to be removed. Under the new constitution there should be a more open system of bringing allegations of misconduct against judges. The South African example seems a good one to follow. Whatever procedure is adopted in the new constitution, it should apply to magistrates and other judicial officers, not just to judges. Financial security Financial security, the second core element of judicial independence, should mean: • that the judge’s income is not reduced while he or she holds office; and • that judges’ recompense is adequate (bearing in mind that accepting judicial office almost invariably means a drop in income) and appropriate for the work and responsibility. The salary should be such that there is not even the temptation, let alone the need, for a judge to have a sideline business or to receive rewards that may raise doubts about his or her impartiality. Ensuring financial security can present problems, particularly when inflation erodes judges’ salaries. In Zimbabwe there is no legislative or constitutional provision compelling the executive or legislature to adjust judicial salaries for inflation. Some provision of this sort needs to be inserted in the new constitution, so that we do not again see such things as occurred in recent years, where the Reserve Bank bought luxury goods for the judges. Administrative independence In most countries that follow the Westminster system of government, the courts are administered by the Executive, that is to say, the registrars and clerks who do the administrative work to keep the courts functioning are members of the public service employed or at least paid by the Executive. In Zimbabwe since the Judicial Service Act came into operation in June 2010, they have fallen under the control of the Judicial Service Commission. It is debatable whether this is necessary for judicial independence. In other countries the courts have remained independent despite executive administration of the courts; and even if the courts are given 62