expressed an opinion on any aspect of the merits of the case. Therefore, in the Chamber’s view, there was no indication of any lack of impartiality on the part of Judge M.K.” 130. In the instant case, it is the Applicant, challenging the impartiality of the Chief Justice to adduce reliable and sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of impartiality. The Applicant, failed to adduce concrete evidence of partiality but rather chose to generalize allegations that are unsupported by any evidence capable of leading a reasonable observer to apprehend bias on the part of the Chief Justice. The chief Justice is only being blamed with regard to his previous execution of judicial duties which may have some lame bearing on the case at hand. It must be reiterated that, to be exposed to material facts yet to be presented in evidence in a case does not necessarily lead to pre-judgment or partiality. The Applicant’s argument overlooks the fact that judges can sit in multiple cases involving same parties based on same evidence. Although, the Chief Justice decided on some cases which struck cords in the impeachment trial itself, his judicial records in those cases are not instructive as to whether a reasonable observer properly informed could apprehend bias in the absence of concrete instances susceptible to formation of bias. While the possibility is not ruled out that previous decisions rendered by a judge could suffice to establish bias, a judge must enjoy the presumption attached to him until otherwise proven of a conduct giving rise to doubt. 131. International Tribunals, particularly, the European Court of Human Rights, have in a plethora of cases affirmed on several occasions that complaints concerning judges’ lack of independence and impartiality 53