By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

Judge ought to be removed from office. Where the Commission advises thepresident that a judge ought to be removed from office then the president isobliged to do so. The effective date of removal is the date when the presidentmakes the decision to remove the judge from officeDuring the month of April 1991 the appellant appeared before the Commissionappointed under Article 110 (6) of the Constitution to investigate the question ofremoving him from the office of judge. On the 4 thJune 1991 the appellantreceived a letter dated 24 th May 1991 from P.S (Esbabs) (Annex A) informing himthat the president had removed him for the office of judge by retiring him in thepublic interest as provided under Article 110 (5) (6) and (7) with effect from 13 thMay 1991. That letter (Annex A) was replaced by another letter dated 21 stFebruary 1992 from the chief secretary (Annex D)which stated that theappellant had been removed from the office of judge with effect from 13 th May,1991 That is to say effective date of his removal from office was still 13 th My1991 The appellant contended that Annex D.1 was inadmissible because of itsretrospective effect. With respect we do not agree with the appellant’s contention.The evidence before us is that the president made the decision to remove theappellant from the office of judge on 13 th May, 1991 and according to the generalrule enunciated above, that is not retrospective. The date of the letter informing372