48 a video recording of poll workers working to remove a log from the road leading to a voting precinct. Both witness Lighe and Yarsiah testified that the elections were free, fair, and transparent and conducted in line with international best practice. They denied that the elections were fraudulent. In support of this testimony, Defendant NEC introduced reports from international, observers to the elections to include: the Carter Center, NDI, European Union, and the U.S. Embassy among other. Defendant rested with the production of oral and documentary evidence on November 18, 2017, and introduced into evidence instruments marked D/1 thru D/12. On November 20, 201 7, the Hearing Officer rendered final ruling dismissing Appellants' complaints. Not satisfied with the said ruling of the Hearing Officer, Appellants excepted, announced appeal to the Board of Commissioners, and on November 22, 2017 filed separate bill of exceptions with the Board. Hence, this appeal follows. The parties appeared before us on November 23, 2017, for oral arguments. Having considered Appellants' bill of exceptions, arguments of the parties and the record in these proceedings, we have determined that the following issue is determinative of this appeal; (1) Whether Appellants presented evidence of irregularities and/or fraud to warrant voiding the declared returns from the October 10, 2017 elections. LEGAL STANDARD IN ELECTION DISPUTES Because. Appellants' appeal herein concerns the manner and/or results of the October 10, 2017 elections, we begin our analysis by noting the laws and legal standard controlling election dispute: In the case: Management of the Forestry Development Authority (FDA) v. Walters et al., 34 LLR 777, 783 (1988), the Honorable Supreme Court held as follows: "In this jurisdiction, it is evidence alone which enables the court, tribunal, or administrative forum to pronounce with certainty the matter in dispute, and no matter how logical a complaint might be stated, it cannot be taken as proof without evidence. It is required that every party alleging the existence of a fact is bound to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence." In the case: Sando D. Johnson v. National Elections Commission et al (decided December 16, 2005), the Honorable Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Korkpor (now Chief Justice) held as follows: "We must keep in mind the cardinal principle 'governing election disputes, that is, he who challenges an election result must overcome a strong presumption in favor of the validity of the election process and results... In other words, in elections, the presumption is that the official is legitimate, he acted properly, the process is free, fair, and transparent and the result is credible. So, one who says that the election process is not fair and/or the result is not credible hays the burden to establish his cause." In the case: Kuku Dorbor et al v. National- Elections Commission (decided 2012), the Honorable Supreme Court held that election results are presumed to be valid until shown otherwise. Section 3.6 of the New Elections Law states that. "The general registration roll for each registration center] shall be opened for public inspection at the office of the Magistrate of Elections without a fee on any day in a week during the