76. The issue of whether the forwarding of names of purported “needy and deserving persons”, for such consideration as appropriate, in the context of such policy by the HDC which: i. apparently recognises recommendations from a wide range of persons, and ii. apparently even extends to all members of the public, is a matter that the fair -minded and informed observer is required to take into account in considering whether there was a real possibility of bias in the hearing of the appeals. 77. The fair- minded and informed observer, whose opinion on the issue of apparent bias is determinative, would put these matters into context. He would therefore consider (in the absence of the alleged WhatsApp messages between the CJ and PM) whether any logical connection could be demonstrated, between the CJ’s recommendations, and any party to the election petitions, or their outcome. In fact this point is only emphasised by the submission on the part of the applicant (as set out above), that both political parties interested in the outcome of the election petitions could equally complain of bias. This in fact demonstrates that the circumstances surrounding the recommendations, rather than suggesting bias in regard to each, are more suggestive of bias in relation to neither. Constitutional Limbs 78. Given our conclusions that the relevant circumstances will not give rise to an apprehension of a real possibility of bias, the constitutional limbs of the applicant’s argument, which are founded on the same factual basis, would equally not be sustainable. 42