partial with the tendency of being biased against him because he presided over issues relating to his impeachment at the Supreme Court on two or more occasions and therefore cannot be objectively seen to hold a neutral opinion in his trial. The Applicant in his response to Defence Document-5 at 2.04 says “the Chief Justice, having sat on the two cases filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the entire impeachment process, having voted in both cases and delivered an opinion in one of the said cases which involved a challenge to the Senate itself, the dignity of the Supreme Court in such event requires that the Chief Justice should voluntarily recuse himself from the impeachment trial before the Senate”. The Applicant, out of lack of trust and confidence in the Chief Justice as the presiding judge in his case, filed an application for him to recuse himself from the trial but that request was turned down. 119. The Respondent contended that the Chief Justice neither expressed an opinion nor sat on the alleged cases on merit but rather ruled on preliminary measures applications. The Respondent also submitted that if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had recused himself, nobody could have presided over the Senate hearing in accordance with the provision laid down by the law in section 43 of the 1986 constitution of the Republic of Liberia. 120. It is pertinent to the resolution of this issue, to put in proper perspective, two salient points; firstly, the Chief Justice’s presidency over the impeachment trial at the Senate was in compliance with a constitutional provision as enshrined in section 43 of the 1986 Constitution of Liberia which reads in part as follows: “When the President, Vice President or an Associate Justice is to be tried, the Chief Justice shall preside; when the Chief Justice 48