89 stipulated in the Elections Law. As the records before us show that that first step was undertaken by Charles Walker Brumskine and Harrison S. Karnwea who were part of the first complainants, and was done within the time period stipulated by law, they therefore qualified to move to the next step, not in concert with the other first complainants who had decided to abandon their appeal, but in their own right and for the protection of their own interest, allowed under bot the Constitution and statutory laws of this nation. As such, the only obligation they had was to enter into a recognizance with the NEC as to them and to them only. The recognizance required of them, in such case, under Section 6.8(a) of the Elections Law, was only five thousand United States dollars (US$5,000.00) or its Liberian equivalent. The records show that that amount was deposited into the account of the NEC. The NEC does not dispute that fact; it only argues that the amount should have also included the required payment for the candidates seeking election to the House of Representatives on the ticket of the Liberty---an issues which we have already addressed. We hold, therefore, that as the recognizance entered into between the first appellants herein, Charles Walker Brumskine and Harrison S. Karnwea and the NEC, was adequate and sufficient, and in full compliance with the law, the appeal taken by them to the Supreme Court was not just rendered thereby cognizable before the Supreme Court but vested in the Court the full legal jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeal. Accordingly, this Court denies the motion to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellee, rejects all of the claims made therein, and sustains the resistance filed thereto. This brings us to the second issue presented by the parties, whether the Chairman of the NEC should have recused himself from sitting on the hearing of the appeal take to the Board of Commissioners, over which he presides as Chairman. Our answer to this issue is yes. We hold the strong and considered view, from our review of the statements made by the Chairman in press conferences held by him, that he could not play the role of an impartial arbiter in respect of the appeal taken to the Board of Commissioners from the ruling of the Chief Dispute Hearing Officer. We note that following those statements, which neither the NEC nor the Board of Commissioners of the NEC has denied, the first and second appellants filed before the Board of Commissioners a motion praying that the Chairman recuses himself