By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

decision has, I agree with Mr Nassoro, caused the Applicant considerableembarrassment.(2) The citation, the Principal Secretary’s letter, of Standing Order F. 35 asbeing one of the legs on which the President’s decision was intended tostand suggests, very strongly, that in making, or coming to, his decisionthe president was under the mistaken belief that the Applicant held hisoffice in the Immigration Department at his (the President’s) pleasure. Ihave, I hope, sufficiently demonstrated that in this country civil servants,including immigration officers, do not hold office at the pleasure of thepresident. It is perfectly correct to say that a civil servant’s security oftenure is lesser than that of a judge, but it is equally correct to observethat security is not as limited as is implied by the Principle Secretary’sletter. Standing Order F. 35 cannot be valid in law, because it isinconsistent with the provisions of sections 22 and 36 (2) of theConstitution as read together with sction 11 (1) of the said Constitution.(3) No provision of law speaks of retirement of a civil servant in the publicinterest. Neither section 19 of the Civil service Act, 1989 nor Regulation 29of the Civil service Regulation, 1970, confers on the President power toretire a civil servant in the public interest. The provisions speak ofremoval, and not retirement, in the public interest. It speaks of removal.Paragraph (d) of section 8 of the Ordinance refers to compulsoryretirement for the purpose of facilitating improvement in the organization ofthe department to which the servant belongs, by which greater efficiency493