the material in the investigative report of LATT, as well as in the judicial review proceedings, related to the HDC allegations, and disclosures or non-disclosures relating thereto. We permitted reference to the documents filed in the JR proceedings, (filed as an attachment to a supplemental affidavit on behalf of the applicant), de bene esse. This was on the understanding that the issues in the instant matter were separate and distinct from those in the judicial review proceedings, and that extreme care needed to be exercised not to trespass upon the issues in those judicial review proceedings. Further, in these proceedings, which focus on the legal issue of apparent bias, no findings of fact are required to be made. Issue 8. The applicant’s complaint is summarized succinctly in counsel’s outline submissions as follows: “A’s bias complaint in a nutshell A fair minded and informed observer would conclude in the circumstances of this case that there was a real possibility that the CJ was biased by reason of (i) the undisputed facts, (ii) the proper inferences to be drawn from the material gathered by the Law Association, its executive summary and report and (iii) CJ’s failure to dispel serious, specific and detailed allegations made against him and/or his failure to comply with his duty of disclosure”. 9. It was also contended that on the same factual basis there will also arise i. a breach of the right to a fair trial before an independent tribunal ii. a breach of the right to equality before the law and the protection of the law iii. a deprivation of procedural protections necessary for securing the aforementioned rights. 10. This application is solely concerned with an issue of law, namely, whether or not the decision in the election petitions before the Court of Appeal 5