The complainant alleges that the judge spoke with an extreme egotistical condescending behaviour, was arrogant in his words and actions, was laughing at the behaviour of the lawyers almost in an abusive manner, lacked professionalism and continued to say

20170017 - The complainant alleges that the judge spoke with an extreme egotistical condescending behaviour, was arrogant in his words and actions, was laughing at the behaviour of the lawyers almost in an abusive manner, lacked professionalism and continued to say how he had to leave at 3:45.

To warrant consideration by the Council, a complainant must provide a valid and rational factual basis that concerns the conduct of a judge before a meaningful review can be done. A bare allegation, in of itself is not sufficient, details are important. It is the responsibility and duty of the judge to control proceedings before him to ensure an effective and efficient use of court time, as well as a fair hearing. Decisions pertaining to procedure, conduct of a hearing, as well as the assessment of evidence, fall under the authority of the judge and should be appealed in court if dissatisfied. The Council has no jurisdiction to review a judgement, or reason for the decision.