36 amount to fraud. Like the issue in Nimba County where the Complainants alleged that a presiding Officer was found with pre-marked ballots, though it was not established that the ballots indeed entered the ballot box, the NEC quarantined and have re-run of the elections in that polling place. The Hearing Officer have not seen from the records or the evidence presented by the first Complainant and the Intervenor/Complainants that fraud has occurred and that because of such fraud a determination of the true will of the 1.7 million voters who participated in the October 10, 2017 elections is impossible. The Complainants have the burden of establishing that, because of the fraud shown by them, the true result of the election was changed. The mandate of a successful challenge must prove that the irregularities changed the result of the election or resulted from fraud. Fraud is never presumed but must be proven by preponderance of evidence which the complainants have failed to do. WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF ALL I HAVE SAID ABOVE, the National Elections Commission is mandated to take the necessary steps to correct all what they alluded to as difficulties and challenges before any future election. The first Complainant and the Intervenor/Complainants having failed to prove allegations of irregularities and fraud, that would warrant the re-run of the October 10, 2017 elections, said complaints are hereby denied and dismissed. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND THIS 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, A. D. 2017 Muana S. Ville (Cllr.) CHIEF DISPUTE HEARING OFFICER DISPUTE HEARING OFFICE/ NEC” From the ruling quoted above, the first and second complainants noted exceptions and announced an appeal to the Board of Commissioners of the NEC. All of the conditions for the completion of the appeal having been complied with, including the filing with the Board of bills of exceptions duly approved by the CDHO, and the Board of Commissioners of the NEC having thereby acquired jurisdiction of the case, assigned same for hearing on November 23, 2017. We shall not quote the extensive bill of exceptions filed against the ruling of the CDHO, but we shall refer to various portions of same where they bear relevance to particular issues and contentions advanced by the parties on the appeal taken to this Court and which we feel the need to address. What is important for these proceedings as it featured prominently in the bill of exceptions filed against the final ruling of the Board of Commissioners of the NEC, is that upon the parties appearing for hearing of the appeal before the Board of Commissioners of the NEC, the Board was notified that the appellants had jointly filed a motion before the Board for the recusal of the Chairman of the Board and the NEC. As the said motion to recuse is addressed in this Opinion, we deem it important that the said motion be