41 Korkoya will be biased in hearing Appellants' appeal. For the benefit of this decision, we herein produce Appellants' motion: [THE BOARD THEN QUOTED VARBATIM THE APPELLANTS’ NINE-COUNT MOTION TO RECUSE AND THEREAFTER CONTINUED WITH ITS RULING] Having heard arguments from the parties and considered the matter, we have concluded that the below listed is the only issue determinative of this appeal: (1) Assuming that the statements quoted in Appellants' motion are true, do such statements reveal that Chairman Korkoya will be biased in hearing Appellants' appeal? Section 2.10(a) of the New Elections Law provides that the Chairman shall be the "official head and spokesman of the Commission." Section 2.10(b) provides that the Chairman shall preside over all meetings and hearings of elections contests." We observe that the statements attributed to Chairman Korkoya during the referenced press briefings were made on November 1, 2017, and that nowhere in the said statements is there any specific reference to the Liberty Party and/or the Unity Party. Neither is there any mention that the Chairman commented on any evidence that Appellants presented to the Hearing Officer. Moreover, as to the claims regarding the proliferation of ballot papers and the "Know your Candidates" papers that were posted on social media -- the Board notes that said claims were also made by Vision for Liberia's Transformation (Volt) and other political parties not parties in these proceedings. The Board notes further that some of the issues the Chairman spoke about, including the issue concerning buried ballot papers in Grand Gedeh, do not form part of the complaint or any evidence in the Liberty Party's case. Moreover, at the time the Chairman made said statements, Unity Party was not a party; to case, having made a party on November 6, 2017. So the chairman could not have discussed their case or any evidence therein. The Chairman was only performing his role to the presumed validity of the election results and refutes the false social media report regarding the presence of alleged ballot papers in certain part of the country. As to the statement that the "Commission stands by the election results published," the Honorable Supreme Court has held that election results are presumed to be valid until shown otherwise. Kuku Dorbor et al v. National Elections Commission, Opinion of the Supreme Court of Liberia, 2012. Therefore, it is the considered opinion of this Board that any statement emanating from the Commission which tends to support the validity of the elections until such validity is removed by a preponderance of the evidence adduced at a competent judicial forum cannot be the basis of a recusal. The Honorable Supreme Court has held that in the absence of any statute to the contrary, it is settled that a judge is not disqualified because of unfavorable comments or an expression of the opinion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused. The mere opinion by a judge which can be removed by the evidence is insufficient to disqualify a judge from sitting on a case. For reliance, see: In Re: Counselor C. Abayomi Cassell, Contempt Proceedings, 1979). Assuming, arguendo, that the referenced statements were unfavorable to Appellants, though not directed at their case and/or any evidence therein, we note that with Chairman Korkoya presiding, Appellants availed themselves several times before the Board after the alleged statements were made without ever raising the issue of partiality or bias.