By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

As we have already intimated the term remove is not at all ambiguous But it iswhat follows next after the removal that is not clear. Could such a person beemployed elsewhere within the public service? Could he be given terminalbenefit or should be go as he came?Peoplecome to the bench from various backgrounds Some wereCommissioners for lands Resident Magistrates Directors of public prosecutionsor state attorneys army officers professors or private practitioners. Suppose onefrom these categories is removed from the office of judge or a justice of Appealdoes he go back where he came from or is that door also closed to him? Does aperson like the appellant who became a judge on promotion from the magistracy:remain a public servant capable of being employed in other departments uponhis removal from office of judge or must he be regarded as havingbeendismissed from the dismissed from the public service? These are troubling butvery pertinent questioner Presumably it was in an attempt to find answers tothese troubling questions that the respondents believed they had found a solutionin coining the objectionable phraseology removed from the office of judge byretirement in the public interest. Under the pensions ordinance retirement in thepublic interest attracts terminal benefits The concept of removal from the office ofjudge has yet to be provided for by law and until such time the positions notclear. That could be undesirable depending on the cause of removalThis is why we said earlier that the respondents and even the learned ChiefJustice ought to have been aware of the technical unconstitutionality of Annex A387