A High Court has granted permission for legal action to proceed against the Judicial and Legal Service Commission over its continued failure to make a decision on allegations of judicial misconduct involving two High Court judges.
Justice Westmin James ruled that the applicant presented an arguable case with a realistic chance of success, allowing the matter to move forward for judicial review.
The application was filed by Ronald Clive Roberts, who acted on his own behalf and on behalf of his son, Isaiah Jabari Emmanuel Roberts, a child born with cerebral palsy following a 2006 medical negligence incident that led to years of legal proceedings.
Roberts had initially submitted a complaint to the Judicial and Legal Service Commission in 2019, accusing two judges of misconduct. However, the Commission later stated that the matter fell outside its authority and no investigation was conducted.
In 2025, Roberts renewed the complaint, citing a Privy Council judgment which he argued showed that the Commission does, in fact, have oversight powers concerning High Court judges. Despite acknowledging receipt of the renewed complaint, the Commission allegedly failed to provide any further response.
The Commission opposed the application, arguing that it had already communicated its position, that the complaint was filed too late, and that Roberts had previously failed to object to one of the judges despite being aware of an alleged personal relationship involving the case.
However, Justice James stated that silence from a public body can be challenged in court, especially in matters involving judicial accountability and public confidence in the legal system. He noted that the Commission failed to provide evidence explaining its prolonged lack of response.
The judge also stressed that unresolved allegations affect not only the complainant but also the judges involved, who deserve timely resolution and possible vindication.
While the court allowed the challenge regarding the Commission’s inaction to proceed, it rejected requests seeking immediate declarations on the alleged misconduct itself and other related constitutional issues, ruling that such matters were premature at this stage.
The applicant has been directed to file the main claim within 14 days, while the Commission must respond within 28 days after being served. The next case management hearing has been scheduled for July 7.
