Violation of the Constitutional Law and International Provisions in the Dismissal of Justices and Judges from South Sudan Judicial Pillar

Abstract

This study discusses the constitutional disputes, which arose after the President of South Sudan issued the Presidential decree dismissing 14 justices and judges from the judicial organ in the country. For the President and the Chief Justice, the dismissal complied with the constitutional provisions. On the other hand, the dismissed justices and judges argued that the dismissal violated the provisions of the national Constitution and the East African Community Treaty. In this situation, the victims of the dismissal avoided the domestic remedies, the Supreme Court, which redresses the constitutional disputes and launched a lawsuit impugning the dismissal to the East African Community Court of Justice (EACJ), an international law court to adjudicate the case. The study finds three reasons which persuaded the victims to avoid the domestic remedies in favour of the EACJ: first, the constitutional immunities protecting the executive from lawsuits; second, section 33(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 2007, gives the Minister of Justice to stay the lawsuit; third, act of impunity in the executive organ. The research recommends that nationals as voters need to press the legislature to amend the Constitution and rescind immunities and section 33(2) of 2007. The act of staying the lawsuit from proceeding constitutes partiality of the executive organ to the judiciary and that frustrates the independence of the agency.