By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

the Daily News and Uhuru newspapers on 14 th March 1990 According to theappellant the commission to investigate the allegation was not appointed untilMarch 1991 a year later.If this contention is true then the purported suspension was clearly unlawfulAccording o Article 110 (8) of the constitution a judge is only suspended fromperforming he functions of his office after the question of removing him fromoffice has been referred to a commission appointed until March 1991 the March1990 purported suspension was unlawful It is most regrettable that such anirregularity was allowed to occurThe tardiness with which the question of the appellants removal from office wasdealt with after the commission’s recommendation also leaves a lot to be desiredApparently the Commissionsubmitted its recommendation regarding theappllant’s removal from office before the 13 thMay 1991 the appellant wasinformed of the decision on 24the May 1991. The appellant was informed of thedecision on 24 th May 1991 vide Annex A. on 23 rd July 1991 the appellant wroteto P.S. (Estabs) to protest the decision Annex B.1 to this the P.S. (Estabs)replied on 6 thAugust 1991 regretting he had nothing to add. However, on 25 thSeptember 1991 the appellant wrote again this time to the Chief Secretary StateHouse reiterating his dissatisfaction with the decision. To this there was noresponse until 31 st October 1991 The response was to the effect that the matterhad reached its finality and that the Government would not entertain any morecorrespondence on the subject However on 21 stFebruary 1992 the Chief391