By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

in the following terms: Such regulations or instruction are legal instruments underthe prerogative power and in the case of GCHQ the change in the conditions ofservice have been made by instruction given by the prime minister under thatpower (ii) nothing amounting to a legal instrument under the prerogative powerhad been issued before 25 January 1984 and accordingly the letter of 25 January1984 and the General Notice 100/84 were both invalid (iii) on a true constructionof article 4 of the order in Council of 1982 instructions providing for the conationsof service of civil servants were specific instruction in writing setting out therelevant conditional of service: no such instruction had been given by the primeminister under that power had been issued before 25 January 1984 andaccordingly the letter of 25 January 1984 and the General Notice 100/84 wereboth invalid; (iii) on a true constriction of article 4 of the order in Council of 1982instructions providing for the conditions of sercoce of civil servants were specificinstruction in writing setting our the relevant condition of service no suchinstructions had been given by the minister for the Civil Service and accordinglythe letter of 25 January 1984 and General Notice 100/84 were both invalid: (f) (i)the minister for the Civil Service had no power lawfully to compel personsemployed at GCHQ to give up membership of a national trade union or todeprive them of their right to join a national trade union since the existingcondition of service/contracts of service of such persons permitted suchmembership any change in those conditions of service contracts of servicecontracts of service could be affected only by a lawful variation thereono suchlawful variation had been achieved by the proposed unilateral variation since theCrown had no power. Statutory. Prerogative or otherwise. To vary condition ofservice contracts of service at will (ii) furthermore no purported acceptance of thenew conditions of service /contracts of service whether of option A or of option Bset out in the option form attached to the letter of 25 January 1984 from theDirector of GCHQ to all members of staff had affected such a lawful variationsince (1) no consideration had been given for the purported agreement to acceptthe new terms and (2) such acceptances as had been given had been givenunder duress namely in relation to option A the unlawful threat by the Crown to336