further advanced that the apprehension of bias could arise on the part of both the previous and the current government because of alternative scenarios. These were set out as follows: g. That his request which he was actively pursuing or at minimum was still interested in either remained live and pending or had found favour and was successful under the new government whose elected representatives were the subject of the election petition. OR That the request for assistance was not successful under the PP government and there was a real possibility that the applications may have to be processed and granted under or by the new government. (whichever was true) The observation…. that the evidence shows that most of the lobbying actually took place under the PP government doesn’t weaken the argument. The Respondents assert that if anything, this shows that they may have had good grounds to be concerned about bias against the PNM. The importance of disclosure and the principles about apparent bias are not concerned with showing bias to one particular party. What is important is that the FMIO has confidence in the judicial process and fairness to all parties concerned. Even if it could have been perceived by the Respondents that the CJ could be guilty of apparent bias in favour of the PP government, this underscores why disclosure was necessary to both parties. Bias to anybody taints the proceeding whether it is to one side or the other is not the determining factor in this case. (All emphasis added) 72. The fair- minded and informed observer would also note and take into account the statements of the previous Minister of Housing that he had no communication with the CJ and conclude that recommendations made to the HDC, certainly prior to September 2015, did not imply communication with the Executive in the person of the Minister of Housing. He would also note the further reported and confirmed statement by him that any one was free to recommend and there was a process. 40