1. The letter announcing the appointment of judges to the Constitutional Court is odd & vague so that it is not possible to determine the law under which they are being appointed. It says the President has “approved” the appointments “at the instance” of the Acting Chief Justice.
2. The letter is coming from the Judicial Service Commission. The “approval” bit is perplexing. It’s either the President appoints or he doesn’t. Whether before or after Amendment No. 2, he is the appointing authority. If they are acting judges, his approval is irrelevant.
3. True the judges take their oath before the Chief Justice but it is unclear whether they are being appointed under the old procedure when they were interviewed last September or as amended by Amendment No. 2. But does it make any difference to the contentious cases? None.
4. There is no difference because all the judges are parties in the proceedings concerning Amendment No.2. They are still conflicted and the fact that they are being sworn in doesn’t change their station. If you have a brown cow and you paint it black, it’s still the same cow!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
