presented and that the process leading to the Plaintiff’s indictment and subsequent trial were neither hostile nor in breach of the established guaranteed procedural rights of an accused to such an extent that the fairness of his trial was prejudiced. Indeed, whether the Plaintiff’s removal from office by the then President of the Defendant pursuant to the said petition by the Gambian Bar Association was without investigation or not, is an issue in itself to be interrogated by Court in this trial, and that fact does not impute discrimination on the part of the Gambian Bar Association. Imputing to the Defendant an alleged hatred by the Gambian Bar Association on the ground of the Plaintiff’s nationality, in the face of comparative information available to the Court including his appointment to the highest judicial functions, is far-fetched an attribution this Court considers unsustainable. In any case, the Plaintiff has not been able to discharged the burden of proof required of him as stated in the case of FEMI FALANA, WAIDI MOUSTAPHA v. THE REPUBLIC OF BENIN & 2 ORS (2012) CCJELR 1., where this Court held that: “as always, the onus of proof is on a party who asserts a fact and who will fail if that fact fails to attain that standard of proof that will persuade the Court to believe the statement of the claim”. Discrimination in this context, even if presumable against the Gambian Bar Association, which has not been proven, cannot be attributed to the Defendant herein. The Court, therefore finds that the issue of discrimination based on nationality alleged by the Plaintiff has not been sufficiently proven and same is hereby dismissed. 18