show that the said Petition was indeed signed by Anas Aremeyaw Anas in his personal capacity as a citizen of Ghana and not as Tiger Eye P1. 7. The Applicants aver that whilst all these cases were pending, the DirectorGeneral of the Criminal Investigations of the Ghana Police Service commenced an investigation into the allegations levied against the Applicants by Tiger Eye PI. In response, the 2nd and 3rd Applicants wrote a protest letter against the said investigations but the 1st Applicant caused a writ to be issued in the High Court challenging the validity of any such investigation by the Ghana Police Service. 8. Following from the above facts, The Applicants filed this initiating application on 8th December, 2016. The Respondent having failed to file a defence to the action, the Applicant filed an application for default judgment on the on 14th of March, 2017. Furthermore, the Applicants on 29th of March 2017 filed another application for Provisional Measures seeking an order to restrain the Respondent from proceeding with their impeachment pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. SUMMARY OF PLEAS IN LAW OF THE APPLICANT RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE 9. The Applicants invoke the following Human Rights Instruments; Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 7(1) (a) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to support the case that their right to fair hearing has been breached. 10. Further, the Applicants argue that there is no provision in the 1992 Constitution of Ghana which empowers the Judicial Council to take those decisions on the 16th December, 2015 to pay the Applicants half salary and suspend the payment of all allowances to them as a result of the Tiger Eye PI petition without given them the opportunity of Fair hearing. 11. Applicants submit that the Republic of Ghana by the above described actions and decisions as to the identity of even the Applicants’ accuser, alone go to show how unfairly the Applicants are being treated. This, it is submitted, constitute a violation of the Applicants’ rights to fair hearing as enshrined in Articles 10, 14(1) and 7(1)(a) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International 4