By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

emoval of a judge from. Office for inability to perform the functions of that office.One the Commission advises the President to remove a judge; the President hasno discretion, whether in substance or form, but simply to remove the judge asadvised. Any other measure device or strategy like retiring the judge in the publicinterest, or purporting to remove him from office by retiring him from the publicservice, would offend the express provisions of the constitution and be void. Butin the light of the authorities cited above, the Government cannot be preventedfrom insisting on the correct interpretation of the law and from correcting sucherrors. In the instant application, therefore, Annexture “DI” was validly issued toset right the constitutional broach perpetrate in Annoxture “A” And for my part, itmatters not that this was done after the proceedings were commenced. I holdthat court proceedings cannot be used to compel anyone to persist in defying thelaw. For these reasons, I am again of the view that stoppel does not avail itself.Finally, there was a charge of bad faith on the part of the Government and Iunderstood the applicant to ground this charge in the fact that he received noreply to Annoxture “BI” or “B2”, and was not provided with a copy of theCommission’s report. He claimed that these omissions vitiated Annoxture “D1”. Ithink I should similarly be frief here. First of all, as remarked at the beiggining,there was no evidence that Annextures “B1” and “B2” over reached theaddresses and there would be no point bolabouring the issue. What is probablysignificant is the applicant’s decision not to among to his application the letters headdressed to the President and to the Principal Secretary to the President. As478