107 Liberia Agricultural Company (LAC) v. Associated Development Company (ADC) Supreme Court Opinion October Term, A.D. 2012. The witness also attempted to give clarity to a statement made by the NEC’s Chairman to the effect that all those holding valid voters’ registration cards would be allowed to vote. According to the witness, the Chairman’s statement was made during the provisional voter roll exhibition and was only intended to assure Liberians that at the close of the exhibition process all those with valid voter registration card will be confirmed and admitted to the roll. We equally quote this aspect of the witness’ testimony in chief: “I also like to provide clarity as we have done in the past that commissioner's statement regarding those with valid ID cards names not being found on the provisional roll. At that point in time, were speaking to voters who had raised concerned that they could not find their names on the voters registration roll. The essence of exhibiting the provisional roll is for verification, it is for actual modification of voters prior to the compilation of the Final Registration Roll. When Chairman Kokoyah spoke months ago he was calming the fear of many voters who did not see their names on the registration roll and he assure them that at the close of the exhibiting process when the final roll must have been prepared all those voters who were legitimately given voter ID cards, their name will be on the final registration roll and be allowed to vote. Your Honor we are grateful to the Liberian people for the level of participation as exhibited on the 10 of October, 2017.” The question is, if that was the true intent of the Chairman’s statement then what was the necessity of making such a statement since the sole essence of the exhibition process was to verify the legitimacy and/or accuracy of voters identification? If that is the interpretation of the Chairman’s statement, why did the Co-chairman counter such statement by flagging out its potential of creating chaos? Or should we conclude that the Co-chair could not properly read into the intent of the chairman’s statement rather it is the Executive Director who is best suited to interpret the Chairman statement? Or better still why couldn’t the Chairman provide clarity to his statement since he is the best person suitable enough to determine the meaning of same? All these questions point to a conclusion