to the Applicant at the trial. According to the Applicant, the Senate had no prior specific rules governing impeachment trial, so upon the receipt of the Bill of Impeachment from the House, same was forwarded to its Judicial Committee which then sought amendments to the Senate Standing Rules, particularly Rule 63 to enable the Senate handle the trial. The Applicant argues that though the Amended Rule 63 was adopted by the Plenary of the Senate, there was lack of clarity and certainty in the rules so far as his trial was concerned to the extent that four (4) Senators filed a suit at the Supreme Court to challenge the legality of the amendment made to the Senate Rule 63 on grounds that it did not conform to the constitutional mandate and threshold of the phrase “prescribed procedure by the “Legislature”. 139. The Applicant further contends that after the submission of final arguments of the parties, and contrary to the law and the established practice in jury trials, Chief Justice/Presiding Officer again declined and refused to charge members of the Liberian Senate, who were sitting as jurors and as triers of the facts, on the evidence produced and the applicable constitutional provisions and statutory laws, and further neglected, failed and refused to require the jurors to remain together as jurors until they could return a verdict. It is on record that one of the jurors, Honorable Senator Sando Johnson, prior to the return of their verdict, wrote to the Presiding Officer seeking to bring to his attention that the verdict reached in the impeachment trial was not in conformity with even Section 24 of the very controversial Senate Amended Rule 63 hence, Senator (Juror) Johnson was objecting to any announced outcome of the verdict but his plea was ignored. 57