was crossing the strictures of due process of law, and equally difficult and almost impossible to foresee the consequences. It is therefore, not in doubt that the absence of prescribed rules of impeachment substantially affected the fairness of the impeachment proceedings at the House and the Court so holds. 104. On the issue of the non-involvement of the Applicant in the impeachment proceedings, the Respondent at the hearing argued and submitted as captured in the verbatim report that “the decision in the House of Representatives does not require under our laws, the participation and person of the Applicant and lawyer.” 105. It is pertinent to note that an “impeachable charge” existed from the moment the Petition for Impeachment, containing the accusations of impropriety against the Applicant, was officially brought to the notice of the House. At that point, the Applicant’s situation had been substantially affected by the actions taken by the two Honourable Petitioners of the House as a result of a suspicion against him. It followed that, the right to due process of law became applicable at that pre-trial stage; being the impeachment at the House because, at that stage, a public authority was making a decision that had an impact on the Applicant’s criminal and civil rights. To this end, the Applicant was entitled to the benefits of all the facets of due process of law at that stage to afford him the opportunity to sufficiently defend himself whether or not he was intended to be interrogated or subjected to any investigative act during the relevant period. 106. Article 7 of the African Charter envisages certain minimum pre-trial procedural rights to be accorded everyone charged with a criminal offence 41