27 into place certain safeguards that would ensure that the run-off election was free, fair, transparent and credible. Upon the appearance of the Intervenors as parties to the ongoing electoral challenge proceedings before the CDHO, they filed a motion containing seven applications for the issuance of writs of subpoenas duces tecum and subpoenas ad testificandum, stating that the evidence sought by the applications was crucial to proving the case against the NEC, especially in respect to the allegations of violations of the Constitution, fraud and irregularities in the electoral process attributed to the NEC. The CDHO, having entertained arguments on the motion, granted only two of the applications made in the motion and denied the remaining five applications. The intervenors noted exceptions to the decision and appealed the matter to the Board of Commissioners of the NEC. The Board of Commissioners heard the matter but was not forthcoming for several days in rendering a decision in respect of the appeal. Whereupon, the intervenors filed a bill of information before the full bench of the Supreme Court, alleging that the failure or refusal of the Board of Commissioners to expeditiously rule on the appeal before it was not only a violation of the mandate of the Supreme Court handed down in the case Charles Walker Brumskine et al. v. NEC on November 6, 2017, but that said failure or refusal by the Board to hand down a ruling on the appeal was prejudicial to the intervenors since the effect was to have the intervenors proceed with its case against the NEC without the documents requested by the intervenors to support the allegations levied against the NEC in their complaint. The Supreme Court, upon conducting a hearing into the bill of information, denied same on grounds that the Supreme Court could not set a date for the NEC to hand down its ruling on the appeal before it filed by the informant since the date set by the Constitution for the NEC to dispose of a case had not yet expired and that in any event the NEC had handed down a ruling in the appeal before it, thereby rendering the information before the Supreme Court moot. Whereupon, the intervenors proceeded to have witnesses, including the Executive Director of the NEC, testify in an attempt to verify or authenticate the allegations and claims made by the intervenors in