20 electoral irregularities, all levied against the NEC, were being investigated, the NEC proceeded with arrangements for the holding of the announced November 7, 2017 run-off election between the CDC and UP presidential and vice presidential candidates. This prompted the 1st appellants to file a petition for a writ of prohibition before the Justice in Chambers of the Supreme Court. The alternative writ having been issued, the case was referred to the full bench for hearing, given the constitutional issues presented in the petition and the fact that it concerned an election matter, considered to be of urgency. A hearing was expeditiously had before the Supreme Court and an Opinion delivered granting the peremptory writ directing that the November 7, 2017 run-off not be proceeded with until the NEC had disposed of the complaint before it, and as necessary, any appeal to the Supreme Court had also been determined. However, as neither the petition nor decision of the Supreme Court affected the proceedings being conducted before the CDHO, the investigations already commenced by the CDHO were continued. At the mentioned investigation before the CDHO, the complainants produced a total of twelve (12) witnesses, all of whom testified to various aspects of the allegations levied in the complaint. However, upon the complainants resting evidence but before the defendant, NEC, was opportuned to commence the production of its evidence, the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the Unity Party, Joseph N. Boakai and Emmanuel Nuquay, respectively, as well as the Unity Party, filed a motion to intervene in the proceedings, simultaneously with a complaint, also against the NEC. Whereupon, the CDHO suspended further proceeding with the investigation until the motion to intervene had been disposed of. On October 31, 2017, following resistance filed by the NEC to the motion to intervene and the entertaining of arguments by the parties before the CDHO, the CDHO ruled denying the motion. On appeal to the Board of Commissioners of the NEC, the Board reversed the ruling of the CDHO and allowed the intervention sought by the intervenors, co-appellants herein. The granting of the motion by the NEC Board of Commissioners thereby allowed the complaint filed by the intervenors to become a part of the ongoing proceedings and rendered the intervenors positioned to present oral and