28 Elections Commission must adhere to in all matters placed before it to determine not only whether an aspirant is in violation of the Code but also as to the appropriate penalty to be imposed. We should state further that since the Opinion of this Court in the Polson case, setting the standard that the National Elections Commission should apply in making its determination as to whether an aspirant is barred or not from contesting an elective public position in the October 2017 Elections, no amendments have been made by the Legislature to the Code setting a different standard than that set by this Court in the Polson case. As such, the standard articulated by this Court in the Polson case remains the governing standard for determining whether an aspirant is barred or disqualified from contesting an elective public position in the October 2017 Elections. Applying that standard to the instant case, we do not believe that the penalty of disbarment imposed on Co-appellant Harrison S. Karnwea by the National Elections Commission conformed to the standard stated in the Polson case and reaffirmed in the Kamara case, as we do not believe that the facts, as culled from the records, indicate that the failure by Co-appellant Karnwea to comply with the Code was of an egregious nature, he having substantially complied with the Code of Conduct Act. In the Kamara case, this Court deemed the violation of the Code by Mr. Kamara to be egregious because even as he sought to challenge his disbarment by the National Elections Commission from contesting an elective public office in the ensuing October 2017 Elections, he continued to hold onto the office of Assistant Minister of Post and Telecommunication, including even up to the date of his filing of his application with the Commission, the filing of his petition for the writ of prohibition before this Court, and the handing down of the Opinion and Judgment of this Court. Co-appellant Harrison S. Karnwea, Sr., on the other hand, is placed in a completely different category. The records show that although prior to the decision in the Polson case Mr. Harrison S. Karnwea, Sr. held onto his position as Managing Director of the Forestry Development Authority, as in fact the Code was under a constitutional challenge, once the decision of this Court was handed down in the Polson case wherein this Court declared that the Code was constitutional, Mr. Karnwea, unlike Mr. Kamara, almost immediately following this Court’s