26. The Plaintiff further states that his counsel filed a motion for the trail judge to recuse himself due to the above reason and the prosecution, knowing it was a fact did not file any affidavit in opposition to dispute the fact, still the trial judge refused to recuse himself which is a clear gross violation of the plaintiff human rights. The plaintiff will rely on the said motion and ruling at the trial of this case”. In effect, the gravamen of the Plaintiff’s allegation is that while he was in office, there was a pending case before him on corruption to which the trial Judge was involved and that the Chief Justice who replaced him assigned his own trial to the said judge. Another perplexing concern is that the Plaintiff’s case had been assigned to one Legenju Vitalis, a state Counsel who is a nephew to the trial Judge and at that time, was living in the same house with the trial judge. In response to this assertion, the Defendant denied the existence of any pending case and maintained that the prosecution was led by a special litigation counsel, one Mr. Agiah and assisted by a state counsel Legenju Vitalis, who for all intents and purposes was a state counsel at the Attorney General’s Chamber. One fundamental point which needs to be clarified by the Court is whether or not the trial judge was indeed a subject of corruption proceedings before the Plaintiff when the former was assigned as the trial judge over the Plaintiff’s trial. The Plaintiff who bears the burden of proof, in his pleading averred as reproduced above. When same was denied by the Defendant, the Plaintiff in his oral evidence before the Court on the 22nd November, 2018, at page seven (7) of the verbatim, stated as follows: 20