THE EDITOR: Chapter 3 Section 35 and 36 of the Constitution are clear.
There is no debate on the removal of the President. The motion to remove the President must be passed by a vote of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the Senate and House of Representatives assembled together in what is known as the Electoral College.
Thereafter, if the vote is carried, a tribunal of the Chief Justice and four of the most senior judges investigates and reports to the Parliament, which then considers the report and then by resolution, supported by no less than two-thirds of the Electoral College, declares that the President should be removed from office.
I cannot understand how senior lawyers expected to have a debate on the matter/motion.
Especially when Section 38 clearly states that the President shall not be answerable to any court for the performance of the functions of his/her office for any act done by him/her in the performance of said functions.
To the many who are running up and down talking about violation of the Constitution, perhaps they should first be familiar with the very document they seek to protect.