1) The totality of allegations in Paragraph 1 has not been established. The claims do not reveal serious violations of the Constitution and the law, gross misconduct, or incompetence.
2) It is not the role of JSC to facilitate the independence of the judiciary in the manner claimed in the Petition. The facilitative role of the JSC is limited to competitive recruitment of judicial officers, improvement of conditions of service of judicial officers, and independent and impartial processing of complaints against judicial officers, all which contribute to the protection and promotion of judicial independence.
3) Allegations in paragraphs 2&3 of failing to ensure accountability of judges arises from quasi-judicial determinations of matters before the JSC. The decisions are appealable in the High Court. Parliamentary has no role to interrogate (or renovate) such decisions.
4) The totality of the claims in paragraphs 4-9 speaks to the alleged gross misconduct by the JSC. The claims are whimsical and unsubstantiated. The two-test standard that removal for gross misconduct must be in the public interest; and that the conduct complained of must be of such a nature as to shock the conscious of the public, have not been established.
5) The claim in paragraph 10 that the JSC has interfered with judicial independence, cannot be a subject of inquiry, for the simple reason that judicial independence and decisional independence of Judges is guaranteed by the Constitution. Responsibility for judicial decision rests with the individual judicial officer.
6) The claim in paragraph 11 that the JSC is incubating polarization and politicization of the judiciary is unsubstantiated and unmerited.
7) The totality of the claims in paragraphs 12-15 speaks to fair administrative action. Persons whose applications for appointment as Judges of the Court of Appeal are yet to be processed, for whatever reason, are entitled to written reasons and any other procedural safeguards under Article 47 and the Fair Administrative Action Act. If the JSC is unresponsive, the proper forum is the High Court.
8) The consequential claims in paragraphs 16-19 are, therefore, either misdirected, or have not been established.
9) In any event, removal of the Chief Justice from the JSC effectively means that the Chief Justice must exit the Judiciary. At all times, the Chief is the Chairperson of the JSC as by law required. The procedure for removal of the Chief Justice is outlined in Article 168(5)(a). Under this provision, Parliament has no role. Similarly, Parliament has no role in initiating the process of removal of a Judge. If there is ground for removal of a Judge, other than what is excluded under Article 160(5), the provisions of Article 168 is automatically activated. The actions complained of, if established, constitute grounds for removal of the affected Judges, a process that excludes parliamentary intervention.
10) The totality of the Petition is that it seeks to impugn decisions made by the JSC, while making an indecent and illegal attempt to apportion blame on a section of the Commission. Under the Third Schedule of the Judicial Service Act, decisions by the JSC is a shared responsibility, which also speaks to collective accountability. Consequently, it is not open to Parliament or any constitutional organ to interrogate a section of the Commission for decisions that are collective.
The Speaker should declined to admit the Petition, and instead refer the Petitioner to locate the proper fora, and initiate separate processes for removal of JSC Commissioners in the manner prescribed by the law.