Explanation needed on protracted delay in appointment of Chief Magistrate & deputy
Dear Editor,
On June 7, 2025, we wrote to the press expressing concern that Magistrate Judy Latchman had not received her instrument of appointment as Chief Magistrate. Similarly, Magistrate Alisha George’s appointment as Deputy Chief Magistrate, also approved by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), has not been finalised. According to a June 5, 2025, article, both appointments were approved by the JSC in January 2025.
It has been a month since our June 7, 2025, letter, but the Chair has not yet issued the appointment instrument to Magistrates Judy Latchman and Alisha George, despite their approval through normal vetting.
In our June 7, 2025, letter, we asked whether the issue was an oversight or had another reason, urging the Chair to clarify. Constitutional commissions have often resisted criticism and scrutiny, but this must change; all state agencies should be held accountable and transparent, as taxpayers expect nothing less.
At a meeting of the JSC on June 10, 2025, we understand from a source that the protracted delay in the issuance of the instrument of appointment to the two magistrates was discussed, and we have been disappointed to learn that the Chair is seeking to derail these JSC-approved appointments, which the JSC members rejected. The Chair has no veto power over decisions. She has one vote like other members, except when the votes are tied.
Article 226(4) states: “Any question for decision by a commission shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members of the commission at which a quorum is present, and if on any question the votes are equally divided, the Chairman or the member presiding shall have a casting vote in addition to his or her original vote.”
We learnt that a letter was sent to the Chair and Secretary of the JSC expressing members’ dissatisfaction with the Chair’s actions regarding the approved appointments. We request that the Commissioner of Information provide us with a copy of this letter under the Freedom of Information Act.
We urge the Attorney General, Bar Association, and President to enquire into this issue with a view to resolving the impasse. Perhaps a Commission of Inquiry might be useful, and there is judicial precedent for this. We hope this matter does not result in lengthy delays like the election fraud cases.
