the Plaintiff has raised issues of the impartiality and independence of the judges who presided over his proceedings both at the trial Court and the Appellate courts, improper evaluation of legal points raised in the proceedings, refusal and/or failure to make the records of proceedings accessible to him and finally his inability to consult freely his lawyer while at the Mile 2 Prisons. Indeed, the defendant merely denied the plaintiff’s assertion that he applied for the trial records to enable him appeal, but the defendant/its agents made it extremely difficult for him to obtain them. The issue of not permitting the plaintiff’s lawyers to visit him in prison was also rebuffed by the defendants. However, this court deems them very serious allegations against the due process of trial of accused persons. Though the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to lead further evidence in proof of these denied pleadings, the court also resorts to the credibility of the plaintiff’s evidence on the other issues as well as the mere incredible denials of the allegations by the defendant and comes to the conclusion that it believes the plaintiff’s evidence in its entirety, and therefore concludes that the plaintiff has established credibly that the defendant failed to allow his access to his lawyers whilst in prison, and also that the defendant frustrated the appeal process. There is nothing before the Court to suggest that the trial Court acted under the recommendation of the National Assembly, the Tribunal or the Judicial Service Commission as the case may be. There is also no evidence of a fair trial or proceeding before a duly constituted tribunal in line with Section 141 of the Defendant’s Constitution. In light of the above, whereas the 1997 Constitution of Gambia provides the methods of initiating proceedings for the removal of a Supreme Court Judge, and whereas the provision requires the tribunal to conduct independent investigations before making a conclusion, and whereas the 33