The CJ makes a point

IN an unprecedented move that the Chief Justice was constrained to take yesterday, he administered oath to 15 of the 17 judges to the High Court recommended for appointment by the government and approved by the President. By taking this position, we think, he has asserted his sense of integrity and shown boldness where it was required which we appreciate. We are hopeful that this will help enhance public confidence in the judiciary.
We are surprised how the government could include such controversial and even tainted personalities in its list of recommendations? Thereby it not only forced the CJ's hands into taking an exceptional decision but also stood embarrassed and even dragged the name of the President. Why should the government's recommendations have been tainted at all?
We think the government owes an explanation to the public. It would not be an overstatement to suggest that the CJ's action is an expression of no confidence in the decision of the government insofar as the two nominees are concerned. And this begs the question which needs clarification by the government.
While there may not be as yet a law governing the appointment of judges to the High Court, there is a 12-point guideline, formulated by a larger bench of the High Court in 2008 while dealing with the case of passing over of 10 additional judges during the 4-party alliance regime. The guideline lays down specific manner, with emphasis on transparency and clarity, of nomination. And it involves not only the CJ but two senior judges each from the High Court and Appellate Divisions as well as the AG and president of the SCBA.
Evidently, not only has the process been disregarded; it appears that in some cases the criteria for nomination have been violated also. This basically reinforces the position taken by the Chief Justice and we believe all right thinking people would be supportive of his decision.
This is not the first time that partisan considerations in selecting judges to the High Court have been given preference in some cases; what has cast a shadow of disbelief is that the list of nominees includes one accused of murder and other of alleged misdemeanor.
The government, for its credibility's sake, should take due note of the matter and ensure that all its recommendations are above board and impeccable as procedures laid-out in a verdict are followed.