for the pre-trial investigations and framing of charges had been deficient for
three reasons; firstly, the investigations were conducted by the SAC instead
of the House’s Judicial Committee, which is permitted by law and the practice
of the House to handle such cases; secondly, there were no existing prescribed
rules of impeachment at the time of his impeachment; and lastly, he was not
invited nor heard at the impeachment proceeding in the House.
94.On the issue of the SAC handling the initial investigations instead of the
House’s Judicial Committee, the Applicant’s argument is that since the latter
is the Committee that handles all matters in the House concerning the
judiciary, the departure by entrusting the investigations in his impeachment to
the SAC amounted to violation of the House’s rules which potentially affected
the due process of law required in the handling of his impeachment.
95.It must be noted that, the House is the master of its own rules and proceedings.
In the conduct of its internal affairs, this Court can only intervene where a
Community citizen has established under the texts of the Court that his
fundamental human rights have been violated in the process. See: LINDA
GOMEZ & 7 ORS V. REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA (Supra). Though,
certainty of law and procedural rules require that, before any person is charged
for criminal offence, the law and the procedures as well as bodies mandated
to investigate and try the case must be sufficiently known to the accused, it is
the view of this Court that, handling of the investigations by the SAC in the
Applicant’s case in itself, standing alone, was not adverse to the required due
process of law. It must be noted that the fact that the decision to prosecute the
Applicant based on the petition of the two (2) members of the House was
entrusted to the SAC of the House, and may, to some extent involved
37