By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

when questioning the constitutionality of his removal by retirement in the publicinterest However about four months after the above mentioned letter and with theknowledge of the appellants application the Chief Secretary wrote Annex D.1rectifying the unconstitutionality complained of the. The question is whether thiswas done in good faith or as maintained by the appellant it was done in bad faithUnfortunately, that question is made even more difficult to answer by Mr. Monoadmission that Annex A, the letter which proported to remove the appellant fromthe office of judge by retirement in the public interest was unconstitutional. But inthe face of Annex D.1 Mr. Mono became aware of the unconstitutionality ofAnnex A.We have been troubled by the question whether this unconstitutionality of AnnexA was not apparent to the learned Chief justice when he passed on the letter tothe appellant and more still when the appellant complained to him about it. If theC J was aware of the unconstitutionality and yet closed his eyes to that fact forall that time then it could be inferred that Annex D.1 was indeed made in hadfaith. However, if it escaped him which we find difficult to accept, then bad faithcould not be imputed. What we have said about the C.J is also true with regard tothe respondents one of whom is the Attorney-General who is the chief legaladvisor to the GovernmentAfter giving the question a lot of thought we are unable to agree with theappellant that Annex D.1 was made in bad faith We are of the considered opinion367