136. This Court in the case of JUSTICE JOSEPH WOWO V. THE REPUBLIC OF GAMBIA (supra) in an answer to the above question on the issue of impartiality of the judge held that: “The question is whether a reasonable, objective and informed person would on the correct facts reasonably apprehend that the judge has not or will not bring an impartial mind to bear on the adjudication of the case, that is a mind open to persuasion by the evidence and the submission of counsel…it must be assumed that they can disabuse their minds of any irrelevant personal beliefs or predisposition.” 137. In the determination of the issue under this head, putting all the analysis and case law authorities together, this Court answers in the negative that the right thinking reasonable member of the society in the light of all the transactions that occurred in the impeachment proceedings of the Applicant, the Chief Justice who served as the Presiding Officer in the trial at the House of Senate could not be said to be “unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that the judge is unable to decide the matter impartially”. Consequently, this Court holds that the allegation of impartiality against the Chief Justice as the presiding judge over the Applicant’s trial was a figment of the imagination of the Applicant, there being no subjective or objective grounds for his apprehension of bias and partiality, and the Court so holds. 138. On the issue of irregularities at the trial and judgment, it is the case of the Applicant under this head that, the trial at the House of Senate was equally fraught with several irregularities that caused irredeemable prejudice 56