By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

even to seem to express an opinion one way or the other on whether or not Art.13 (6) (a) is applicable to proceedings under Art. 110 (6) All that we have done isto use Art 13 (60 (a) as further support to our view that the appellant had a rightto a copy of the report of the commissionThe question is who is to supply that copy of the report? The learned judge hadsaid: As regards the Commission report the commission was by law required toreport to the president only. We agree with the appellant that he had neversuggested that the Commission had to report to him as well. He had merelyrequested for a copy. The request was initially to the judiciary but in our opinionthat was not the department which had to send a copy of the report to theappellant. The duty lay with the Executive.The last ground of appeal we have to consider is the fourth ground which isconcerned with the meaning of removal from office. This is also the subjectmatter of cross-appeal by the respondentsThe appellant claimed that the term remove is ambiguous. However, he cameround the agree that remove or remove is not at all ambiguous But what followsafter one has been removed is uncertain as the constitution makes no specificprovision for when he discussed very seriously the two concepts of removal fromthe office of judge and retirement in the public interest385