[74] Learned Counsel for the Claimants went on to submit that a cause of action and constitutional infringement has been pleaded and disclosed by the Claimants in regards to the alleged breaches of this section of the Constitution by the Speaker of the House of Assembly: (i) that the Speaker was in breach when she failed to make a fair and unbiased determination as to whether the Claimants were properly summoned to the sitting of the House of Assembly; (ii) that she was also required to make a fair and unbiased determination which she failed to do as to whether the period and circumstances envisaged by Section 35 of the Constitution had truly existed before she made her declaration; (iii) that when the Speaker claimed to be the authority and person to act in such a manner that would adversely affect the Claimant’s rights under section 35(1) and benefits and legitimate expectations derived there from that she was bound and compelled under section 8(8) of the Constitution or the rules of natural justice to give the Claimants a fair hearing or at least a fair opportunity to be heard25.  [75] Learned Counsel, Mr. Richards, contended that the Claimant correctly and clearly pleaded the failure, further that these allegations are relevant in that they tend to show a pattern of conduct by the Prime Minister with the Speaker of the House of Assembly which shaped the circumstances envisaged by Section 35 of the Constitution by the which the absence of the Claimants from Parliament was or could be explained or justified. [76] The Claimants also contend that pleadings show that the Speaker failed to show the independence that is required by section 8(8) of the Constitution, in that, she failed to give 25    See paragraphs 8‐14 of the claimant’s augmented written submissions.  22