94 such officers cannot preempt the investigation by setting out the position of the Commission on the issue raised by the Hearing Officer has had an opportunity to hear the evidence and determine upon the magnitude or sufficiency of the allegations and the evidence, and the matter appeal to the Board. No person at the Commission whether the Chairman or other Commission or officers should indulge in conduct which could be viewed as prejudicial or which could prejudice the outcome of the investigation or obviate the need for forwarding the matter to the hearing officer for investigation. Adherence to the course and procedure we have outlined here, and which we believe should be heeded by NEC not only conforms to the law and intent of the drafters of the Constitution and New Elections Law, but ensures due process of law reference in those sacred documents.” We affirm and re-confirm the holding of the Supreme Court and hold that while a matter is pending and undetermined before the NEC, no officer of the NEC should indulged in any conduct or make any utterance that would prejudice the investigation being conducted by the NEC. The third issue is whether or not the appellants proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the October 10, 2017 elections were steered with irregularities in violation of the Constitution and Elections Law, and if so whether they reached the magnitude as to those elections void and to warrant a rerun. In order to answer this issue, we take recourse to the allegations levied by the first and second appellants in their respective complaints and the oral and documentary evidence produced by them in support of the allegations, on the one hand, and the NEC’s responses and/or rebuttal testimonies to these allegations on the other hand. This Court has said in a large number of Opinions that it is the law that evidence alone enables the court to pronounce with certainty the matter in dispute, and that the best evidence which the case admits of must always be produced as no evidence is sufficient which supposes the existence of better evidence. Reynolds v. Garfuah, 41 LLR 362, 371 (2003); Liberia Agricultural Company (LAC) v. Associated Development Company (ADC), Supreme Court Opinion October Term A.D. 2012, and that no matter how logical a complaint might be stated, it cannot be taken as proof without evidence. The Management of International Bank v. Wilfredo C. Ochoada, Supreme Court Opinion, October Term, 2012.