Oh I agree this couldn't have happened to a more deserving person.
But the circumstances surrounding the nature of the perma bamp is suspect: that it occurs during his serving of a bamp with 2 / 5 of the judging cases being the same? My concern is that this occured after, I believe, the updates to the Tribunal system.
If this was another 2 week bamp then I'd chalk it up for automated error but, as Riot has said multiple times, each perma bamp case is reviewed by a Rioter. That in the face of these issues a Riot employee decided to issue a perma bamp seems heavyhanded and worrysome.
The whole argument for the Tribunal is that it works, for the most part, within a set of clearly defined rules: if we have issues like this cropping up where Rioters are seen to be overriding the initial rules they themselves set up, well, it doesn't necessarily tarnish the system's reputation but for me, at least, I'd be more skeptical of the process in the future.