House of Representatives. The record has this to say about President Bill Clinton of the United States of America impeachment trial as follows: “The Judiciary Committee held two public hearing at which scholars and federal prosecutors testified regarding the proper grounds for impeachment. The committee did not call any witnesses identified in the Starr Report to testify in public, but did invite Starr to testify. They also propounded a set of 81 written questions to the President, to which he responded. The four articles of impeachment advanced by the committee were based largely on the Starr Report. The full House then approved two of the four articles of impeachment.” 113. It can be deduced from the impeachment proceedings of the two Presidents of the United States of America that they were both given the right to participate in the investigative and framing of impeachment resolution at the House of Representatives. This court further takes notice from the above stated cases in America that, there are clear rules and procedures governing impeachment in fulfilment and compliance with the requirements of due process of law. 114. The procedure followed in the instant case of impeachment in Liberia, is devoid of primary requirements of due process of law. Firstly, there was no identifiable committee at the House mandated to handle impeachment investigations; secondly, there was no prescribed rules of impeachment; and lastly, the Applicant was not involved in his investigations and compilation of charges and evidence against him. Though the Court has held that the effect of the first requirement was cured by the establishment of the SAC, the material prejudicial effects of the other two on the Applicant’s case was 45