2015 after the general election date was announced, to recommend persons for housing. If the Peoples Partnership administration did not expedite these requests to ensure that they were granted before the general election, then this could, in my view, have led the Honourable Chief Justice to think that it was not as co-operative and supportive as he had hoped or expected or worse yet, that the failure to ensure that his recommendees were granted houses before the general election amounted to a “snub” or some form of disrespect. If the Honourable Chief Justice followed up and pursued his recommendation with the newly elected Peoples National Movement administration, then I feel that there is a real risk that he could have been biased in favour of their successful candidates whose elections were the subject of challenge vis the election petitions in anticipation of a more favourable response. The conduct of the Honourable Chief Justice gives rise to real and substantial concerns of apparent bias and/or apparent unfairness in relation to the Honourable Chief Justice’s participation in decisions affecting the election appeals, in favour of the Government. The danger is of a public perception by many citizens that the Honourable Chief Justice may have been seeking favors either as a reward or as part of an on-going relationship of favour – exchanges (if the HDC had already decided whether to grant housing to the 2015 recommendees), or in order to influence the HDC (if the HDC had not yet decided the 2015 applications). The risk is that this perception might be reinforced by the evidence, accepted by the LATT as having a credible basis, that the Honourable Chief Justice had played an “…active role” and “…aggressively canvassed 26