appointment guidelines of Judges. on responsible the for selection should Council appointment setection-ef Judges. Judges The of Europe procedures of Judges. has, that for instance, pertain to and detailed the body -pesitthatthe—bedy+respensiblefor peer It posits that the body responsible for the selection be independent of ‘the government and the administration.’ of It does, however, acknowledge that whereas the selection of Judges should be undertaken executive by an independent branch of body, government the would appointment not be of Judges incompatible by the with the independence of the Judiciary, provided that certain safeguards are in place. See International Judge, adopted Lawyers Principles on the Independence and Prosecutors, Ibid., and Accountability of pp.42-43. We find the position by the Council of Europe quite persuasive and pertinent to the East African Community in as far as it aptly caters for judicial independence. 74. Against that standard, we are satisfied that Article 5 of the impugned act does offend the principle of separation of powers in so as it designates the appointment of judges to the Special court as the sole preserve of the executive brand of government, without any demonstrable safeguards against the unwarranted concentration of the said function in that branch of government. In the same vein, had we considered Article 89 of the same Act our reading of that provision would have been that it constitutes a blatant violation of the principle of separation of powers so far as it subjugates a purely judicial authority and intervention. 75. review process in to executive We so hold. We now revert to the allegations that the pivotal roles of the executive in the appointment compromises fair trial. What Reference No. 15 of 2014 and their would remuneration impartiality amount of the Judges and to negates afair trial of the Special parties’ is in right Court to Black’ Law Page 33 a