43 of the Constitution mandates that any such legislation prescribing the procedure for impeachment of public officials, including judicial officers, must conform to and be consistent with the requirements of due process of law. 90.It is the claim of the Applicant that the House did not have any procedure in place at the time of his impeachment and also constituted an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate and frame the impeachment charges without regard or recourse to the rule and procedure of the House which confers such function on the Judicial Committee of the House; a claim which the Respondent did not controvert. Further, the Applicant alleges that the Senate in his trial amended its rules of procedure and did not return immediate verdict after voting but waited for another two days to declare the outcome of the Vote. 91.The core of the law as it is in the Constitution, empowers the Legislature to prescribe the nitty gritty of the penumbra which is the operational details of how impeachment proceedings are to be conducted; this is a very wide power in accordance with the wide margin of appreciation a national domestic authority has in the determination and operation of its domestic law. 92.The Applicant’s contention in respect of violations of his right to fair hearing may be categorized into three headings for determination. These are; firstly, the claims of violation of right to fair-trial at the Pre-trial stage of his impeachment; secondly the independence and impartiality of the court of impeachment; and lastly, the irregularities in the trial and judgment. 93.On the issue of breaches at the pre-trial stage, basically the Applicant’s bone of contention is that, the impeachment by the House which constituted a stage 36