Some 200,000 vigilant protesters are marching around Israel's parliament (Knesset) and several cities opposing 73-year-old Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu government's new law to control the country's judges. It's a worthy fight to defend the judiciary.

As a politician facing charges of 'fraud, bribery and breach of trust,' Netanyahu, two weeks ago, boldly led a 60-0 majority, after the opposition walkout, to remove a 1984 law which gave the Supreme Court discretion to block or evaluate legislative decisions if they are found to be 'unreasonable' in a democracy. That was his first anti-judiciary salvo which should attract our interest since our own constitution contains a similar clause for 'reasonableness' in law-making.

Our constitution (Section 13) allows a judge to decide whether a law is 'reasonably justified in a society that has a proper respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual.' This restraining provision, subjective as it appears, puts a judicial leash on, for example, the 'tyranny of the majority.'

This 'reasonableness' provision, present in several Commonwealth countries, implicitly responds to the well-documented over-reach of political power ­- the politician's insatiable quest for it and the subversive routes often used to keep it. That is Netanyahu.

However, while fighting for the independence of the judiciary is noble, the judiciary itself must protect its integrity and the rule of law. It was therefore a bit inspiring when our crusading High Court judge, Frank Seepersad, said: 'Orders of the court ought not to be dismissed or disregarded. The rule of law is dependent on parties abiding by the orders of the court.' (Guardian, May 6, 2023) What if they don't? He was dealing with a matter in which the court order was apparently ignored. Too often, it seems, especially by government agencies. Contempt of court is an important judicial tool to maintain the rule of law. Judges must not appear reluctant to enforce their orders. The judiciary loses respect that way. And victims continue to suffer and wonder where else to turn.

In fact, there are provisions in the Legal Profession Act (No 21 of 1986) whereby lawyers are obliged to respect and protect the integrity of the judiciary and not as the Law Association advised, to have it 'scandalised.' Lawyers are obliged 'to promote, maintain and support the administration of justice and the rule of law.' (Section (5) (f) No lawyer should encourage or support any client to show 'disrespect for the judiciary.' (Code of Ethics, Section 10) The fight to preserve judicial integrity and rule of law therefore must come from within as well as outside.

Netanyahu - heading a quickened coalition of extremist parties and religious groups - also plans to give more power to the legislature (a veto) in the appointment of judges. He claims that judges are 'unelected, insular and elitist.' His anti-judge sentiments also stem from the judiciary once blocking his appointment of a coalition partner, Aryeh Deri, as minister of finance while he was conv