A High Court judge has granted leave to challenge the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) over its prolonged silence and failure to make a decision on a renewed complaint of judicial misconduct against two High Court judges.
Justice Westmin James ruled last Tuesday that the applicant had established an arguable case with a realistic prospect of success.
The application was brought by Ronald Clive Roberts, acting as a litigant in person and as the “next friend” to his son, Isaiah Jabari Emmanuel Roberts, who was born with cerebral palsy following medical negligence in 2006. The legal battle stemming from that negligence has spanned more than a decade.
The application challenges the JLSC’s ongoing failure to reach a decision regarding a formal complaint submitted by Roberts.
He initially complained to the JLSC on July 23, 2019.
In October 2024, the JLSC responded to a Freedom of Information request stating the matter fell outside its remit and no investigation had been undertaken.
However, on August 18, 2025, Roberts submitted a renewed complaint, pointing to the March 2025 Privy Council judgment in Marcia Ayers-Caesar vs JLSC as proof that the Commission’s claim that it lacked jurisdiction over High Court judges was legally unsustainable.
Following a formal acknowledgement on August 26, 2025, the JLSC remained silent, even after Roberts issued a pre-action protocol letter on October 17, 2025.
The JLSC objected to the grant of leave, advancing three principal arguments:
• It had already made and communicated a decision that the complaint fell outside its remit.
• Roberts waived his right to object to one of the judges because he knew of a personal friendship between the judge and defence counsel in late 2014, but did not object until March 2015.
• The application, filed on December 1, 2025, was outside the three-month statutory period for judicial review.
Roberts argued that the JLSC’s claim that it lacks jurisdiction over High Court judges under Section 137 of the Constitution was “plainly wrong in law” and “legally unsustainable”.
He also contended that the Commission’s silence and failure to provide reasons for not investigating what he described as a prima facie case of serious misconduct was irrational.
In his judgment, Justice James noted that the threshold for granting leave is low. He said administrative silence can be reviewable and that the JLSC had not produced any evidence explaining the absence of a response or clarifying whether the matter remained under active consideration.
“Allegations involving judicial integrity engage not merely the interests of an individual complainant but broader constitutional considerations concerning accountability, transparency and public confidence in the Judiciary,” Justice James said.
He added that unresolved allegations also affect the judges concerned, who are entitled to a timely resolution for vindication or exoneration.
He also rejected the delay argument at this stage, noting that where the alleged unlawfulness is a continuing failure to perform a function, the issue requires fuller examination at a substantive hearing.
However, Justice James refused leave for the remaining reliefs sought by Roberts, including declarations on the merits of the misconduct allegations, the lawfulness of the promotion of one of the judges to the Court of Appeal, or final rulings on the JLSC’s jurisdiction.
The judge said those requests were premature because the JLSC has not yet communicated a formal decision, and any judicial pronouncement on the underlying merits would risk improper intrusion into the Commission’s deliberative process.
Justice James ordered the applicant to file and serve the Fixed Date Claim Form within 14 days, with the JLSC required to file its response within 28 days of service.
A case management conference has been fixed for July 7.
