92 the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of the NEC, and by law “presides over all meetings and hearings of election contests”. Elections Law, Rev. Code 11:2.10. The Chairman is also indispensable to the constitution of a quorum of the Board. Section 2.4 of the Elections Law states: “Any five (5) members, including the Chairman, shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business of the Commission; they shall decide any question before it, and said decision shall be binding on the Commission.” Elections Law, Rev. Code 11:2.4. In the role delegated to him, and especially because he sits or is expected to sit on every election appeal matter taken to the Board of Commissioners for review, the Chairman cannot and should not make any utterances which would have or give the impression that he could not impartially adjudicate the appeal taken to him. Certainly our law requires that a judge refrains from making comments which would show partiality or give the impression that he has already formed a position in respect of a matter, either before it is brought to the court over which he presides or, as in the instant case, which is already before the court. We disagree with the Board that the comments made by the Chairman were merely unfavorable to the parties to the proceedings. They were prejudicial to the parties even before they had the opportunity of appearing before the Board. In the circumstances, when the Chairman has characterized the allegations made by the parties who are appearing before a subordinate whose salary he pays and to whom he gives directives, as “lies” and “politically motivated”, how does he believe that subordinate will rule in the matter? But more than that, how does a party to the proceedings then feel as to what the disposition of the all-powerful chairman will be when the matter comes before the Board over which he presides. If we place the comments in the context of the Supreme Court, can the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court comment on a particular matter that is being handled by the lower court and still expect to preside over the matter with his colleagues when or if the matter is appealed to the Supreme Court for review? This Court has said repeatedly that a judge or for that matter any person who is charged with a quasi-judicial function should show strict impartiality in a matter which is before him or her or which could be appealed to him or her for review. In re Emery S. Paye, Supreme Court Opinion, October term, 2012; Sasaar v. Republic, 29 LLR 35 (1981). Thus, whatever his or her views may be on the matter, the law requires that those