Some time ago, I read in the Nation newspaper that Attorney-at-law, Hal Gollop, had objected to the Chief Magistrate, Mr. Clyde Nicholls presiding over a case after he (Nicholls) went on pre-retirement leave and another person had been appointed to act in his post. As I understand it, Mr. Gollop argued that since someone had already been appointed to act in the post, Mr. Nicholls would be precluded from performing the functions of that office. In essence, Gollop was saying that two persons could not function as chief magistrate at the same time
I am not one to just accept anything, so I decided to research the point for myself, and came up with section 114 (2) of the Constitution which states:
‘Where by this Constitution a power is conferred upon any person or authority to make any appointment to any public office, a person may be appointed to that office notwithstanding that some other person may be holding that office when that other person is on leave of absence pending relinquishment of the office; and where two or more persons are holding the same office by reason of an appointment made in pursuance of this subsection, then for the purposes of any function conferred upon the holder of that office the person last appointed shall be deemed to be the sole holder of the office.’


















