By McDonald Chipenzi
Reading through social media that some people are now challenging the powers and jurisdiction of the Judicial Complaints Commission (JCC) to HEAR and DETERMINE THE ALLEGATIONS lodged AGAINST THE Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) makes very sad readings and invokes questions. Which law premises such challenges.
Firstly, it is important to be clear that a person qualifies to be appointed to the office of the DPP if that person is qualified to be appointed as a judge (Art 180(2)(a). In essence, the DPP is a judge and is subject to all conditions of service and disciplinary procedures applicable to and on a judge.
Therefore, the removal of the DPP from the Office is on the same grounds and procedure as applied to a judge (Art 182(3). Art 144 guides that the removal of a judge may be initiated by the Judicial Complaints Commission (JCC) or by a complaint made to the Judicial Complaints Commission, based on the grounds specified in Article 143.
Art 143 specifies the grounds on which a judge or DPP can be removed as mental or physical disability, incompetence, gross misconduct and bankruptcy. Art 144 guides further that the JCC shall, where it decides that a prima facie case has been established against a judge, submit a report to the President which the President must act upon it within 7 days by suspending a judge.
After the suspension, the JCC is given 30 days to hear the grounds specified in the charge sheet against a judge or/and DPP and make recommendations either that the allegations are unsubstantiated or substantiated. If the charge (s)/allegation(s) are substantiated, the JCC recommends to the President for the immediate removal of the DPP/Judge from office.
If not substantiated, the JCC recommends for the judge’s immediate revocation of his/her suspension.
The Constitution further defines a Judicial officer in Art 266 to mean *a magistrate, local court magistrate, registrar and such officers as prescribed.
Art 236 establishes the JCC and spells out its functions among them enforce the code of conduct for judges and judicial officers; ensure that judges and judicial officers are accountable to the people for the performance of their functions
Other functions are to receive complaints against a judge [who includes the DPP] or judicial officer, as prescribed; hear complaints against a judge or judicial officer, as prescribed; make recommendations to the appropriate institutions or authority for action, among other functions.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the JCC is constitutionally and legally mandated to hear and determine all allegations against a judge or the DPP. These powers of the JCC are not only limited to the enforcement of the code of conduct for judges and judicial officers, no but as outlined above.
Therefore, it is strange to read that some people are questioning the loci standi of the JCC to hear and determine the fate of the DPP based on allegations against her/him.
I submit