No-confidence motion not enough to remove CJ

Without success so far I enquired of the association whether any document was available giving the basis for the no-confidence vote. A no-confidence vote, whether unanimously or by majority, cannot be the sole reason for removing the Chief Justice.

Section 110 of our Constitution establishes the JLSC, and Section 137 provides for removal of a judge . . . “only for inability to perform the functions of his office, or for misbehaviour . . .” The nation needs a clearly articulated justification for the Law Association’s loss of confidence to which its citizens can subscribe.

The appointment of chief magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar (and very likely Avason Quinlan-Williams) is unquestionably a serious blunder, but in my view the JLSC acted very reasonably — even if misguidedly — in its evaluation of Ayers-Caesar.

The facts as seen by the public are that Ayers-Caesar was leaving behind an outrageous backlog of unfinished business. That the JLSC failed to verify the correctness of Ayers-Caesar’s data from court records could hardly justify the CJ’s removal under Section 137.

Comments regarding an age limit applicable to JLSC members seem misguided. “The appointed members” of the JLSC are not the “officers” referenced in Section 136. Section 110 (3)(a) and (b) clearly envisaged JLSC members to be retirees, thus “one from among persons who held office as a judge” and “at least one of whom is not in active practice.”

MICHAEL JAY WILLIAMS via email