150. While it is true that the Applicant was involved at the trial in the Senate, he was nevertheless deprived of proper appreciation of the proceedings due to lack of clarity in the rules due to the amendments which were effected ostensibly for his trial and the manner same were administered by the Senate. The procedure applied against the Applicant was not sufficiently clear to guarantee the effective enjoyment by the Applicant of his right to fair trial. In that connection, the Applicant was hugely prejudiced. Moreover, the Presiding Officer failed to properly put in check the conduct of the jurors by relaxing the rules of jury trial as pertains to felony trials. In spite of his efforts to impartially perform his role as the trier of the law, the Presiding Officer did not seem to have taken into account the impact of the jury’s conduct on the fairness of the trial in the sense that the jurors were not adequately informed of the procedures to guide their deliberations and voting which could have guided them in assessing the significance of the defence of the applicant, to the extent that some of the jurors formally filed complaints regarding the manner their activities were subjected to abuse. 151. The Court finds that the absence, in the present case, of proper directions or guidance as to how the jury should assess the Applicant’s defence, conduct their deliberations and voting, and coupled with the Applicant not having received sufficiently clear information on the procedures governing his trial, was a major defect that affected the overall fairness of his trial. Alleged violation of the Applicant’s rights to work 62