18 is whether the Chairman of the National Elections Commission was justified in imposing the penalty of disbarment of Co-appellant Harris S. Karnwea, Sr. from contesting the position of vice presidential candidate to Counsellor Charles Walker Brumskine on the theory that the decision was dictated by the Code of Conduct Act. Co-appellant Karnwea having violated the Code by engaging in political activities while serving as Managing Director of the FDA, the first penalty at the time of his service was to remove him from office and thereafter prohibit him from receiving compensation from funds appropriated by law for such office. The legislature, noting that individuals would remain in their respective public offices and come in conflict with the Code by engaging in political activities at the detriment of public trust, specifically stated in section 5.9, a subsection of the presently contested provision Part V, Political participation, that: “Any public official, after due process, who is found guilty of violating any provision of this section shall be immediately removed from the position or office held by him/her, and thereafter no part of the funds appropriated by any law for such position or office shall be used to pay compensation to such person.” However, the appellant having resigned his post as soon as the Supreme Court declared the Code to be constitutional, evidencing respect for the Code after this Court declaration of constitutionality and respect for the decision of this Court, any continued violation of the Code ceased as at that point. Unfortunately, he could not have been dismissed, as per the directive of the Code, as he had already resigned his position. This, however, did not relieve him of other appropriate and reasonable penalty stipulated by the Code, or even the penalty stated in the Opinion of the Supreme Court in the Polson and Kamara cases if by any further conduct, he could be adjudged of egregious affront to the Code and to the Opinion of the Supreme Court, as would have rendered his Application to contest the office of vice presidency in the ensuing October 2017 Elections rejectable and thereby caused his disbarment from contesting the position for which he had filed the Application. In the chronology of events, we are informed by the facts that this Court handed down its Opinion in the Polson case on March 3, 2017. In that