Critics are raising concerns over the government’s strategy to restrict the authority of courts, labelling it as a series of “salami tactics.” Under this approach, the government would divide the plan into smaller, more digestible parts, in an attempt to appease a skeptical public.

The government’s proposal to limit the power of courts has sparked controversy and heated debate among legal scholars and activists. Critics argue that by slicing up the project into smaller pieces, the government aims to avoid a strong backlash from the public, who fear an erosion of judicial independence.

Opponents of the plan argue that these incremental changes, when viewed as isolated actions, may not appear as threatening as a single, comprehensive overhaul. This strategic move, known as “salami tactics,” seeks to minimize resistance and facilitate the implementation of the government’s plan.

While proponents of the government’s proposal argue that it is necessary to streamline legal proceedings and address inefficiencies in the judicial system, critics warn that this piecemeal approach could lead to a gradual erosion of checks and balances, undermining the fundamental principles of democracy.

As the debate around this controversial plan continues, both sides will need to navigate the fine line between promoting efficiency and safeguarding the independence of the judiciary. The government will need to address the concerns of those wary of “salami tactics” if it wishes to gain public support and maintain transparency throughout the process.