9 allow itself the opportunity to listen to the appellants or to have them explain or justify their conduct as would have enable it (the Commission) to not only give adequate and appropriate interpretation to the law in the face of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Selena Mappy-Polson v. Republic of Liberia, decided March 3, 2017, but also to determine what penalty, if any, amongst the range of penalties stated in the Code of Conduct, it could impose on Co-appellant Harrison S. Karnwea, Sr. for his alleged violation of the Code was not of significance to warrant inclusion in the bill of exceptions and seeking the Supreme Court’s disposition of such issue. We wonder further if the decision of the Commission to bar Coappellant Harrison S. Karnwea, Sr. from any participation in the ensuing 2017 Presidential and General Elections, which the records indicate was made, expressed and signed solely and exclusively by the Chairman of the Commission with no indications of any involvement or participation of other members of the Commission or that the Board of Commissioners of the Commission acted as a Body in that regard, which would be evidenced by records of Board proceedings, and which clearly constituted a meaningful and substantial violation of the Elections Law, was not deemed by the appellants to be sufficiently significant to warrant the intervention of this Court and thus being captured in the bill of exceptions and raised as an issue deserving of the attention of this Court. No explanation was provided, either by the records or in the oral argument before this Court by counsels for Respondent National Elections Commission as to why there was such rigid deviation or departure by the Commission from the normal course stipulated by the statute and the Guidelines of the Commission and prior to scrupulously adhered to by the Commission, to justify that the Chairman could alone, and without reference to or any participation of the other members of the Board of Commissioners, as a Board, make a decision of such magnitude as was made in the instant case. Yet, as cardinal as those issues are, the appellants did not believe that they warranted being addressed by this Court. Instead, they proferred in the bill of exceptions and the brief filed before this Court the singular issue of “whether section 5.2 of the code of Conduct was intended to apply to an