accused person as well as sheep and goat from the said relative. That the 2nd Applicant was also seen taking the money from his table and putting it either in his bag or drawer by his side. That in so far as the 3rd Applicant is concerned, the money was brought to him in his house. 26. Respondent claim that by a letter dated 9th September, 2015, the Chief Justice requested the Applicants to respond to the allegations contained in the petition by Monday, the 15th September, 2015. This was to enable the Chief Justice to determine whether or not a prima facie case had been established against the Applicants after taking into account the contents of the audio visual recordings. 27. That without responding to the letter of 9th September, the 1st Applicant caused a writ to be issued in the Supreme Court against Tiger Eye PI, the Chief Justice, as well as the Attorney General in a writ numbered JI/29/2015. The 1st Applicant prayed the Supreme Court to declare the petition to the President as null and void on grounds of public disclosure of the evidence upon which the petition was based as same amounts to a violation of Article 146 (8) of the 1992 Constitution. Though the Supreme Court agreed with the 1st Applicants contention, it took the view that the said violation does not automatically result in vitiating the petition as to render it void against the 1st Applicant. 28. The Respondent state that the 2nd and 3rd Applicants responded to the letter of the Chief Justice denying the allegations in the petition against them. A committee was then set up to determine the petition in line with the provisions of Article 146 of the Constitution. The Chief Justice made a determination that a prima facie case has been made against the 2nd and 3rd Applicants. The 1st Applicant failed to respond to the letter from the Chief Justice but caused a writ to be issued in the High Court on the 17th November, 2015, challenging the petition brought against him as well as finding of a prima facie case against him by the Chief Justice. 29. The Respondent aver that the 1st Applicant remained on duty, while the 2nd & 3rd Applicants were suspended in accordance with Article 146 (2) of the Constitution. That the 1st Applicant on the 14th of October, 2015, applied for administrative leave which was approved by the Chief Justice. However, on the 16th of December, 2015, the Judicial Council decided to place the Applicants on half 10