9/16/2020 NATIONAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION V AMOS SIEH SIEBO-MOTION TO DISMISS-FINAL JUDGMENT – 12. That, as to counts 90, 11 and 12 of movant’s motion, same should be overruled, denied, and rejected, because the New Elections Law, as amended, contemplates specific decisions from specialized functions of NEC to be appeal from, and the decision from which respondent appealed is not from any of the specialize positions named in the Elections Law. That is, respondent did not appeal from a decision of a magistrate or a chief hearing officer; rather, respondent appealed from a decision which emanated from a non-sanction committee, which is irregular. It is a three-man committee without head. Chapter 5, section 2, subsection 3 provides that “the Commission may appoint hearing officers to assess, investigate and assist Magistrate to determine complaints, and a Chief Hearing Officer to make an initial determination on complaints to the Commission.” There is nowhere in the New Election Law or regulation that speaks of the functions or powers of a Nomination Committee. Because this is an irregular body, its decision is not binding, especially given that it failed to report its finding to a Magistrate or the Chief Hearing Officer to have afforded Respondent due process for the initial determination of the Complaint before it is taken to the Board of Commission. 13. Further to count 10 and still traversing counts 9, 10, 11 and 12 of movant’s motion, Respondent says while the law provides flexibilities for the NEC to carry out its duties, it provided safeguards when it says “[t]he Commission may appoint hearing officers to assess, investigate and assist Magistrates to determine complaints, and a Chief Hearing Officer to make an initial determination on complaints to the Commission.” Chapter 5, section 12, subsection 3 of the New Elections Laws. 14. That, Respondent says he took substantial steps to be within the appeal status; that he entered recognizance on August 11; on August 14, he called Attorney Teage/phone number 0888 734746, informing Attorney Teage that he was finding it challenging to reach the Commission due to huge traffic jam, and Attorney Teage of NEC’s Legal Office informed Respondent it was okay, given that he had entered recognizance on August 11th to file the next day. Respondent says the New Elections Law, as amended, like the Code of judiciary.gov.lr/national-elections-commission-v-amos-sieh-siebo-motion-to-dismiss-final-judgment/ 22/36