By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

demean him but will also undermine the office of Controller and Auditor –General hence the prohibition. In the case a judge there is no such prohibition.This to us mean that a judge could be employed elsewhere in the public service.What should determine that in our opinion is the nature of the reasons for hisremoval from the office of judgeWhat are the consequences of the removal of the appellant as communicated inAnnex D.1 to him? That is a difficult question. The report of the Commission wasnot part of the record of appeal so we do not know what led to his removal andtherefore it is not easy to determine what the consequences should be. Howeverwe infer from the abortive efforts of the respondents which we have describedabove that they were willing to treat the appellants as if he had been retired inthe public interest. Thus they were ready to give him his pension. It follows thatthe nature of the reasons for his removal was such that he ought not to lose hispension We therefore give the appellant the benefit of the doubt and we orderthat he be given his pension with effect from 13 th May 1991 the effective date ofhis removalThere is one other issue on which we wish to express our feelings and that is themanner I which this whole matter was handled According to the appellant thewhole matter starred with an announcement on Radio Tanzania Dar es Salaamon 13 March 1990 that president Mwinyi had suspending the appellant from hisoffice of judge on ground of suspected corruption and that he had appointed acommission to investigate the matter. This announcement was also carried by390