The Court will now consider the next issue which the Plaintiff has placed much reliance on in establishing that his trial was bereft of the needed fairness as required by the various instruments underpinning his case: WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL JUDGE’S REFUSAL TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THE TRIAL OF THE PLAINTIFF AMOUNTED TO A BREACH OF FAIR TRIAL RULES IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. It is trite that a charge or allegation of bias against a sitting judge must be satisfactorily proved on the balance of probabilities by the person alleging same and any flimsiest pretext should fail else accused persons would be choosing their own judges whenever a criminal case is instituted against them. The evidence before the Court brings to light the Plaintiff’s aspersions to the effect that the trial Judge before whom his matter was heard, had a likelihood of bias against him. The relevant portions of the Plaintiff’s pleadings on the issue are as contained in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Plaintiff’s Initiating Application cited above reads as follows: 25. “The Plaintiff states that Justice Mabel Agyeman who replaced him and Ms Amie Joof who was the Minister of Justice at the time of the plaintiff’s supposed trial were aware that the trial judge, Justice Emmanuel Nkea was having some pending corruption allegation matter before the plaintiff as the Chief Justice and everybody knows the zero tolerance policy of the plaintiff, still Justice Mabel Agyeman assigned the trial judge to try the plaintiff which was a gross violation of the plaintiff’s human right. 19