Please, where is the problem?

According to the recommendations, the President appoints: * One from among people who hold or have held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court; and * Two from among people with legal qualifications, at least one of whom is not in active practice as such, after the President has consulted with such organisations, if any, as he thinks fit.

The members are usually appointed for three-year terms.

Based on my level head and common sense: * There are two people “who hold or have held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court.” * There are three people “with legal qualifications, at least one of whom is not in active practice.” Usually, former judges are not in active practice, at least for 10 years.

Could somebody please explain to those of us with simple but non-legal minds where is the problem?

PHILIP AYOUNG-CHEE via email