42 This Board, with Chairman Korkoya presiding, on November 4, 2017, heard a motion by NEC to dismiss Appellants' appeal from the Chief Dispute Hearing Officer's ruling denying the Unity Party's motion to intervene in the case: Cllr. Charles Walker Brumskine and Harrison S. Karnwea et al versus NEC. Upon hearing the said motion, the Board, in a decision which was signed by Chairman Korkoya, denied the NEC's motion to dismiss the Unity Party's appeal. Moreover, on November 6, 2017, with Chairman Korkoya again presiding, the Board -- in a decision which was signed by Chairman Korkoya -reversed the Hearing Officer's ruling in the motion to intervene thus permitting the Unity Party to intervene in the instant case. Furthermore, with Chairman Korkoya presiding, this Board has made several decisions in disputes stemming from the October 10, 2017 representative elections in favor of the Unity Party. See Bill Twehway vs. Cebee C.D. Barshell, decided November 2017. The fact that the Chairman might have "made statements deemed unfavorable by Appellants is not a legally sufficient ground for recusal. Moreover, decisions of the Board are reviewable by the Honorable Supreme. WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, because Appellants' Motion to Recuse has no basis in law, same is hereby DENIED AND IT IS HEREBY SO ORDERED. GIVEN UNDER OUR HANDS AND SEAL OF THE NATIONAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION THIS 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER, A. D. 2017. CLLR. JEROME G. KORKOYA CHAIRMAN CLLR. SA AH M. JEGEDE TOE CO-CHAIR HON. SAMUEL Z. JOE COMMISSIONER HON. DAVIDETTA BROWNE LANSANAH COMMISSIONER HON. BOAKAl AMADU DUKULY, ESQ: COMMISSIONER” From the ruling quoted above, the appellants noted exceptions, but did not seek at the time the intervention of the Supreme Court, reserving the right instead to have the matter reviewed upon appeal of the main case. The Board, having disposed of the motion, proceeded to hear the merits of the appeal taken to it by the appellants from the ruling of the CDHO. On the following day, November 24, 2017, the Board proceeded to hand down its final ruling on the appeal. It is the contention of the appellants that the Board rejected some of the contentions advanced by the appellants and omitted addressing others which the Board may not have felt were relevant to its decision; and thereupon denying the appeal and affirming the ruling of the CDHO. It is from this ruling of the Board that a further appeal was taken to this Court for review. In order that the premise is laid for the review requested