By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

On 21 February, and before the Attorney-general filed his counter-affidavit, thePrincipal Secretary to the President wrote to the application a letterSNS/C.230/32/F/48 informed him that the President has, on the advice of theJustice Sandura Commission, remmod him from the office of a judge with effectfrom 13 May, 1991. This letter is annoxture “DI” to the Attorney-general’scounter=affidavit. Hence, in para. 5 of his counter affidavit, the Attorney-Generaloverred that the withdrawal of Annoxturo “A” and its substitution by Annoxture“DI” had rendered the applicat’s application muntory. In reply to the counter –affidavit te applicant assorted that Annoxture “A” was incapable of withdrawal,since it had been acted upon by himself and by the Court, and that Annoxture“DI” was inadmissible in evidence and had not been issued in good faith. In theseproceedings the applicant appeared in person while the Attorney-General wasrepresented by Mr. J.D. Mono, a Senior State Attornoy.When we first not I noted that the applicant’s affidavit was not accompanied by astatement as I was used to see in applications of this kind. The applicantsubsequently filed a Mr. Mono filed a counter – statement but the applicantrefused to accept a copy of the letter. He apparently did so because it gaveformal notice of a preliminary objection to the application basing on para.5 of theAttorney-General’s counter-affidavit. Nevertheless, the applicant agreed tocontinue with the hearing. At the commencement, therefore, Mr. Mono wasallowed to arque the preliminary objection to which the applicant ably andexhaustively replied, and this ruling is on that subject.464