Senate of Liberia which determined the culpability of the Applicant; but rather seized with a case on human rights violations which allegedly occurred in the course of the procedure at the domestic forum. 70.To this end, this Court therefore re-affirms that it does not have the competence to review judgments of national courts and other quasi-judicial bodies of member states in abstracto but it is imbued with the jurisdiction to examine any human rights issues emanating from any activities which take place in Member States and their outcomes with the view to determining their compatibility with human rights obligations imposed by the African Charter and other human rights instruments to which they are parties. Consequently, the Court finds that it has the competence to hear and determine the claims of the Applicant as it is grounded on alleged human rights violation and the same has not been submitted as an appeal from the decision of the municipal Courts. 71.The Respondent submits in its defence that, admitting this case will draw this Court into the business of internal political activities within the Respondent State, which it asserts, this Court lacks competence to do since the Court will be meddling in the political matters of a Member State. The Respondent stated as follows: “the Applicant’s removal was by the political process of impeachment, hence this Court has no mandate to interfere”. 72.On the issue of internal political activities, this Court held in the case of BODJONA AKOUSSOULELOU PASCAL v. THE REPUBLIC OF TOGO (2015) Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/06/15(Unreported) @ Pg. 8 that; “The Court must re–affirm, as it has always done in its well-established jurisprudence, that it hardly considers issues such as political 29