91 Supreme Court decided, and the Board considered, that the Chairman’s statement on the validity of the elections was appropriate until such validity is removed by a preponderance of evidence before a competent judicial forum, and therefore same cannot be the basis for recusal. The Board referenced a Supreme Court Opinion where it said the Court held that a judge is not disqualified because of unfavourable comments or an expression of opinion as to the guilt of a defendant, and hence same cannot be the basis for recusal of the judge. Moreover, the Board ruled that the appellants who were now questioning the impartiality of the Chairman had previously availed themselves of several matters in which the Chairman had presided and in which the Board had ruled in favor of the appellants, including allowing the second appellants to intervene in the case filed by the first appellants, in which the Chairman had affixed his signature to the rulings. Let us state very clearly, in respect to the rationale provided by the Board for its denial of the motion for refusal of the Chairman of the Board that the fact that he did not make specific mention of the Liberty Party or of the Unity Party or of any specific reference to the case can be no justification for the statements made by him when conclusions can be drawn that he indeed has reference to the allegations set forth by the parties to or in the case. When the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners and of the Commission, before whom an appeal from any adverse ruling of a subordinate officer is to be taken, decides that he can make comments characterizing the allegations made by parties in respect of the conduct of the elections as “lies” and “politically motivated” even as the complaint relating to the said allegations is being heard by a subordinate officer, the statements cannot find justification in our jurisprudence, and certainly not under the umbrella that the statements were made by him were in the performance of his role as head of the Commission. There is certainly a point where the Chairman has to dissect and dissociate the two major roles he is charged with playing as Chairman of the NEC. In the one role, he is the ultimate administrative head of the Commission. In the other role, he is the head of the Legal Appeal Body [the Board of Commissioners] to whom all appeals from the decisions made on electoral challenges by subordinate persons of the Commission are taken. Indeed, the NEC structure is almost unique to the jurisprudence of this nation, for not only is the Chairman of the NEC but he is also