wife of Amadou Hama, on charges amounting to the fraudulent offer of children to women who were not their biological mothers. 3. That the statement from the report, which equally indicted other personalities, in the terms of which: “in most of the cases, it was the wives who financed the costs”, did not concern him in any way whatsoever. That even before he was heard on the charges, on 16 July 2014, upon summons from the Public Prosecutor, the Minister of Justice brought the matter before the Council of Ministers, for the purposes of “lifting the parliamentary immunity” on him; and following the summons before the Council of Ministers, the Prime Minister, in turn, brought the matter before the Bureau of the National Assembly, for a trial to be instituted against him. 4. That in reaction to this manner of proceeding with the case, which he deemed irregular, he challenged, via a mail addressed to the Prime Minister, the procedure adopted, citing violation of the relevant rules of law and procedure. 5. That his arguments were dismissed by the Prime Minister, and he brought the case before the Constitutional Court to request the opinion of the Court regarding violation of procedure, and to seek suspension of the procedure unlawfully instituted before the Bureau of the National Assembly. 6. That without waiting for the Court’s opinion, which was still in expectation, and in the absence of the President of the Bureau of the National Assembly (since the National Assembly was not in session), the Bureau was convened by its Vice-President (who is a member of the Majority) and indeed, not by its President; that under utterly irregular conditions, composed of 7 out of the 11 members, the Bureau voted by a simple majority to authorise a trial to be instituted against him. That the decision, as adopted by the Bureau, was taken while he had not even been summoned by the Public Prosecution Office, and while the latter had not ordered any proceedings to be brought against him. Translator : E. Nkansah 4