 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
toubab1020
12312 Posts |
 Posted - 12 Oct 2010 : 20:42:29
|
This from The Point:
http://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/article/justice-almami-taal-removed
Snippet.
"During his tenure as a high court judge, Taal also served in the newly-created Lands Commission."
Could this have a bearing on his removal ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Almami Taal removed
By Sainey M.K. Marenah
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
The Point has learned through judicial sources that Justice Almami Fanding Taal, a high court judge assigned to the civil division, has been removed from his position effective last week.
Though sources did not advance any reason(s) for his removal, Taal confirmed it to this paper in a telephone interview yesterday.
"You journalists like sensational things. I was not sacked but removed," Taal told this reporter, before declining to elaborate further.
Prior to his appointment as a high court judge, Almami Taal was a private legal practitioner, and Chairperson of the National Youth Council.
During his tenure as a high court judge, Taal also served in the newly-created Lands Commission.
He had also worked at the Attorney General's Chambers and the Gambia Divestiture Agency for seven years before going into private practice.
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 12 Oct 2010 20:43:53 |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11735 Posts |
Posted - 12 Oct 2010 : 20:53:30
|
Foroyaa Editorial : SECURITY OF TENURE OF JUDGES IN QUESTION
The Judicial Service Commission Should Take Note!!
By Publisher on 11-10-10
When Gambians are informed that Judges are to be sworn in, the general impression that is given is that the person appointed has been promoted to a higher office in the Judicial system and would continue to occupy the position until one attains retirement age or be promoted to a higher judicial post. The issue of being removed from office for infirmity or misconduct is supposed to be determined by a tribunal established by the National Assembly.
What Foroyaa is finding difficult to understand is the sudden appointment and removal of judges like Justice Almamy Taal. We would also like to recall the removal of Justice Richards. We are also doing more inquiry into the case of Justice Camara. Has he retired? Has he reached the age of 70 years? Foroyaa strongly holds that the Bar association should hold a symposium on the subject of the security of tenure of judges and invite the Chief Justice, some members of the Judicial Service Commission and other legal minds to deliberate on the subject.
Our readers should however take note of these facts:
First and foremost we have asked the Judicial Service Commission to take note since it has powers, under section 147 “to make recommendations as to the terms and conditions of service of judges and other judicial officers and officers and staff of the courts.”
There is definite need to ensure the security of tenure of judges if the independence of the Judiciary is to be fully safeguarded. Section 138 subsection (2) states: “All other judges of the superior courts except the judges of the Special Criminal Court shall be appointed by the president on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission”
It is therefore the Judicial Service Commission which has the mandate to recommend the appointment of High Court Judges. In terms of tenure of office section 141 subsection (2) of the Constitution states that, “Subject to the provisions of this section, a judge of a Superior Court
a) may retire on pension at any time after attaining the age of sixty five years,
b) shall vacate the office of judge on attaining the age of seventy years, or
c) may have his or her appointment terminated by the President in consultation with the judicial service Commission.
Suffice it to say that even though paragraph (2)(c) states that the President could terminate the appointment of a Judge in consultation with the Judicial Service Commission. Subsection (4) adds that “The Chief Justice, a Justice of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court and the members of the Special Criminal Court may only be removed from office for inability to perform the functions of his or her judicial office, whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or for misconduct.” It is obvious that infirmity of mind and body must be medically established while misconduct must be legally established. This is why subsections (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9) deal with procedures required to establish a tribunal which shall be empowered to determine infirmity or misconduct.
Legal minds should grapple with the issue of whether the Judicial Service Commission could ever advise the President to remove a judge from office in any consultative exercise without referring any allegations made against a judge to the National Assembly to facilitate the conducting of impeachment proceedings as required by section 141 of the Constitution.
In our view, once a judge is appointed he or she is entitled to serve up to the age of 70. Voluntary retirement could be sought after attaining 65 years. During one’s tenure one could only be removed for infirmity of mind or body or for misconduct. This is how matters should stand. If any one holds the contrary, the pages of Foroyaa are open to debate. The Bar Association should lead the debate on the security of tenure of Judges and others performing the functions of judicial office.
Source: Foroyaa |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
 |
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 12 Oct 2010 : 21:23:10
|
This story is yet another travesty that puts a tain on the intergrity and independence of the Gambian Judiciary.
Regards |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 12 Oct 2010 21:24:24 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
