Violation of Article 26 of the African Charter 58 . The Complainant referred to the decision of the Constitutional Court, which held that the appointment of a Judge to the Independent Panel does not violate the principle of separation of powers, noting that the Constitutional Court held the following: "At this juncture , the question should be asked : what is the role played by the Judge who sits on this Independent Panel? The answer is that the Judge considers whether there is a prima facie case against the office-bearer; she does not play any decision-making role in the removal of the incumbent. Moreover, the Judge does this as an impartial and independent person. "19 59 . The Complainant contends that it is not correct that the Judge "does not play any decision-making role in the removal of the incumbent, because it is the findings of the Independent Panel which will decide whether there is a case against the officebearer, and if there is a prima facie case , the enquiry must proceed before the Committee established in terms of Section 194 of the Constitution ." 60 . The Complainant contends that every stage , including an inquiry by the Independent Panel , consisting of a Judge and two other persons, on whether there is a prima facie case against the "office bearer" is crucial , cannot be taken for granted and to take it for granted amounts to disregard of the due processes leading to removal of the office-bearer from the office. 61. The Complainant avers that the Constitutional Court misdirected itself when it found that "the Judge is appointed to the Independent Panel , not to make a binding decision , but to give advice on the subject of removal of a Chapter 9 institution office bearer," and further that "it bears emphasis that the Judge is one of a three person Panel , who may well find herself in the minority in the recommendations to be made by the Independent Panel." The Complainant avers that the Constitutional Court violated Article 26 of the Charter when it misdirected itself by suggesting that it is not necessary to exclude a Judge from the Independent Panel "merely because the Judge is only one of a three-person panel and also that the Judge may be in the minority on the recommendations ." 62 . The Complainant contends that the Constitutional Court lost sight of the fact that the Judge may also find herself in the majority decision on the recommendations, and for th is reason "the involvement of a Judge in the Independent Panel which deals with removal of office bearer by a politically charged process undermines the separation of powers and independence of courts ." 63. The Complainant submits that the Rule 129V dealing with the appointment of a Judge does not differentiate between a Judge in active service and a retired Judge. The Complainant therefore submits that the appointment of a Judge who is still in active service in the Independent Panel , which is tasked to fulfil a duty which is politically charged because the removal of the office bearer is done by the National Assembly which constitutes political party representatives , weakens the ►:;~~ st , ET 4F114 440'~ 19 '°«' ~ Complainant's submiss ions on Admissibil ity and the Merits, paragraph 44 11 <\' ~ .i ~ ~ j~ ' '..! r f:) . ii .h -~ - 1· f/7 \~<.."';.~•I ✓.,,, ------= ,,,