and ii. that the CJ and the PM enjoyed a relationship that was sufficiently close that he would feel comfortable in communicating such a request privately and unofficially directly to him. Those concerns need to be confronted. 52. The fair minded and informed observer would be alive to the fact that he lives in a democracy where free and fair elections are mandated by the Constitution. He would also be aware that there is no right of appeal to the Privy Council in respect of election petitions. He would therefore take quite seriously any allegation that an appeal to the Court of Appeal may even appear to have been influenced by the possibility of any member of that Court hearing the appeals having unofficial contact with, or seeking favours from the PM. He would therefore reasonably be expected to pay particular attention to an allegation of any such improper contact. Being reasonable and fair minded he would seek to form his own conclusions from the material available to him. It is in that context that the alleged WhatsApp messages must be examined. 53. Any initial disquiet by the fair minded and informed observer occasioned by the newspaper report would necessarily need to take into account the entire context relating thereto. This would include subsequent developments in relation to this allegation encompassing: i. the investigation by the Law Association and its interview with the reporter who published that allegation, (material relied upon by the applicant and placed by him before the Court); and, ii. the CJ’s denial of that allegation in paragraph 5 of the response22 dated February 28th 2019 to letter dated February 6th 2019 from the applicant’s attorney at law, in particular in relation to paragraph 54 concerning lobbying.23. 22 23 Record of Appeal page 493 Record of Appeal page 337 28