political considerations, was not of itself sufficient to raise an issue under Article 7 of the African Charter. What is important is whether the Applicant’s guilt or innocence was determined by a competent tribunal or court of law in accordance with the evidence properly obtained and presented and that the process leading to the Applicant’s indictment was neither arbitrary, capricious nor political to such an extent that the fairness of his trial was prejudiced. 96.It would be the manner in which the SAC carried out the task that may give rise to any breaches with the potential to mar the requirements of due process of law. The mere fact that all previous judiciary matters were handled by the House Judicial Committee, is not enough to ground an allegation of breach of due process of law in handling the Applicant’s impeachment. Impeachment proceedings are different from ordinary matters affecting the Judiciary. In any case, after its initial investigations, the Report of the SAC was brought to the Plenary of the House for adoption. At that stage, the entire impeachment proceedings became the product of the House and not the SAC. 97.In the circumstances of the instant case, the handling of the investigations stage of the Applicant’s impeachment at the House by the SAC in itself, standing in isolation, did not compromise the requirement of due process of law. Consequently, the Applicant’s claim that the handling of his impeachment petition by the SAC violated his right to fair-trial is unsustainable and the Court so holds. 98.On the issue of absence of prescribed rules, the evidence on records is replete with the submissions from both parties to the effect that, there were no prescribed rules of impeachment at the time the Applicant was impeachment 38