90 from sitting on the hearing of the case as he had already expressed a negative view not only castigating the appellants for filing the complaint against the NEC but also characterizing the allegations made by the appellants in their complaints as lies and politically motivated. They asserted that under the circumstances, the Chairman, having already expressed his bias towards the complaint and the complainants, could not be expected to be display impartiality at the appeal hearing. Specifically, they alleged that the Chairman had accused them of fabrication in an attempt to discredit the Commission; of taking “know your candidates” test ballot forms, which were given to everybody, including political parties, cutting them and because they carried pictures, they placed them on social media stating that the ballot papers were found buried in a septic tank; that the Commission stands by the elections results announced by it; that the allegations of the parties that the elections were marred by electoral fraud were politically motivated; that they were engaging in delay tactics; that the pronouncements and allegations were intended to influence or mislead the public; and that the allegations made by them were lies. The Board, in its ruling on the motion to recuse, did not refute the allegations of the appellants as being untrue---allegations which were carried in most of the newspaper media of the country, and many of which quoted the Chairman’s statements rather than just paraphrasing them; rather, the Board sought to justify the statements made by the Chairman and to seek to make the case that the statements had legal backing in the Opinions of the Supreme Court. The Board ruled, for example, that nowhere in the Chairman’s statements were there any specific mention of Liberty Party or that he commented on any evidence presented by the Liberty Party at the hearing before the Chief Dispute Hearing Officer; that some of the issues mentioned by the Chairman did not form part of the issues presented by the Liberty Party at the hearing before the CDHO; that at the time of the statement, Unity Party was not part of the proceedings and hence could not have been affected by the statements; that the Chairman was only performing his role in regard to the presumed validity of the elections results and refute false social media reports regarding the presence of alleged ballot papers in certain parts of the country; that the Chairman’s statement regarding the Commission standing by the elections results announced by NEC is supported by the Supreme Court’s Opinion in the Kuku Dorbor et al. v. NEC case, decided in 2012, wherein it said the