LSS WANTS 2 ACTING JUDGES REMOVED

MBABANE - The Law Society of Swaziland (LSS) has filed an urgent application for the removal of two acting judges of the Supreme Court.
These are former Deputy Attorney General Sabelo Matsebula and senior lawyer Judith Currie.

LSS wants the court to declare that the appointment of the duo as acting judges of the Supreme Court, was inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of the country.
The LSS is further seeking an order interdicting Matsebula and Currie from performing any functions as acting judges of the Supreme Court pending the final determination of its application.

Respondents in the matter are the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs and the attorney general.

appointed

LSS Secretary General, Thulani Maseko informed the court that Currie and Matsebula did not qualify to be appointed acting judges of the Supreme Court.
They were appointed through Legal Notice No.145 dated August 7, 2018, issued by His Majesty in terms of Section 153.
These are allegations contained in an affidavit whose veracity is still to be tested in court and the respondents are to file their papers.

Maseko stated that the duo’s appointment was extended on October 16, 2018 by His Majesty.
He submitted that the duo’s appointment as justices of the Supreme Court was further extended with effect from February 8, 2019, supposedly by His Majesty.
“I point out that the applicant is not challenging the decision of His Majesty but the advice given to him, which has led to an incorrect and constitutionally invalid appointment,” Maseko submitted.

He contended that the Legal Notices appointing the two as acting judges were incorrect, improper and unlawful.
Maseko informed the court that in terms of Section 153 of the Constitution, His Majesty should appoint a judge of the superior court on the advice of the JSC.  He highlighted that the term of office of the commission was determined in terms of Section 159 of the Constitution, read together with Section 173.

consist

Section 159 stipulates that; “ There shall be an independent JSC, which shall consist of the chief justice, two legal practitioners of not less than seven years practice in good professional standing, to be appointed by the King; chairman of the Civil Service Commission and two persons to be appointed by the King.”
The section further provides that a member appointed should hold office for a period not exceeding four years.

Maseko averred that the current office of the JSC was vacant as its term of office expired on May 6, 2018.
“The Legal Notices issued thereafter by His Majesty were unlawful and inconsistent with the provisions of Section 159 of the Constitution,” he argued.
He submitted that the office of the JSC remained vacant and as such, no appointment of any justices or any judicial officer could be made until such time that the office of the commission had been completed constitutionally.

Maseko asserted that any appointment by the JSC was therefore null and void and of no force and effect constitutionally.

contended

He contended that the appointments of Matsebula and Currie as acting judges of the Supreme Court were made unconstitutionally and ought to be set aside.
He further contended that their appointments were not transparent.
According to Maseko, the regulations required the declaration of any vacant position to be published

.
“LSS maintains that no vacancies were declared for the said positions, nor were the appointments made transparent, and furthermore it was a direct violation and contravention of the Constitution,” submitted Maseko.

He contended that the manner in which the duo was appointed did not meet any of the criteria as provided for in law, and if it was done in terms of the process provided for, it was not open and transparent.

Maseko alleged that the issue regarding the appointment of judicial officers were discussed during a meeting between the executive of LSS and the chief justice.

incumbent

He told the court that it was incumbent for the LSS to raise concerns where it would appear that judicial appointments were not in accordance with the Constitution.
“It is respectfully submitted that for a proper administration of justice, it is fundamental to defend the Constitution,” said Maseko.

He averred that if the two acting judges were permitted to continue to sit and determine matters, their decisions would be unlawful and unconstitutional.
He said the matter was urgent as the continued sitting of the two acting judges violated the Constitution and was allegedly unlawful.

He claimed that any decision made by them (two acting judges of the Supreme Court) was null and void, and would lead to chaos in the administration of justice.  This, according to Maseko, would be to the detriment of litigants who were being exposed to violation.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: