The constitution says the President "SHALL" appoint...within 14days. No exception...
The President argues the guy 'is not a judge' because as per the prevailing ruling, he ought to have retired.
He says we "wait" for the Court of Appeal ruling, which is under a different "Independent" body...There are no timelines as at when they shall make that ruling, since they are independent, they shall as well go on for a few years
Assuming, they make the ruling and decides Tunoi, should have retired a long time ago, Tunoi has a right to appeal at Supreme Court. At this point, again, the president will argue the Judge is retired hence he can't appoint a tribunal.
If the Appeal court rules that he can stay, the President may at that point decide he can appoint the Tribunal. HOWEVER, the very first part of 14 days lingers in mind.
The grounds for removal of a president are clear, one being GROSS violation of the constitution. Isn't this a violation?
The legal things are funny if not silly.