commenced in the House. Attached to the Originating Application is Exhibit KMJ/4 , a copy of the Report of the SAC and in the paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the preambular of the Report, it was stated as follows: “Similarly, in the absence of established rules to govern impeachment proceedings, the Special Ad Hoc Committee drafted certain rules, which were later adopted by the Honourable House. Prominent in these rules is that the Respondent, Associate Justice shall be accorded his constitutional rights especially his rights to due process; The investigation by the Special Ad Hoc Committee has been conducted on the basis of the above premises; A few days after the initial Impeachment Petition was filed by the two (2) Honourable Petitioners and after the SAC was established, the Honourable Petitioners withdrew their original petition and filed an Amended Petition. The SAC’s investigation was therefore expanded to cover the allegations of the amended Petition”. 99.Again, in paragraph 5.17 of the defence, it was argued by the Respondent that “An impeachment case consisting of a full trial resulting in conviction and removal from office is novel in Liberia and as such there is no precedent to follow.” 100. This Court observes that it was at the pre-trial stage that issues of how evidence was procured and compiled, the identification of witnesses, framing of charges were all conducted. The legal framework governing the pre-trial proceedings, especially the absence of prescribed rules of engagement and other material procedural issues were hugely assaulted which presented a potential prejudicial consequences on the rights of the Applicant to defend himself at the trial by the Senate. Not only would the existence of rules 39