101 there so they sent me to another line, I went there they said my head was not there. They had one copy book and they were calling people to go and vote, so they sent me to room 7, I went there they said my head was not there, so I came back to room #1, then I asked Mammie Doyen Moore, the ES, I told her during the voter registration time you people were the one that registered me and they are telling me my head is not here and I really want to vote, she said Yah wait, later she said before you can vote you need to give me small thing, either you buy me soft drink, she said give me 150, I give her the 150 dollars, after I gave her the 150 she told the boy to put my name in the black copy book and they put my name in the copy book , then they called me, Yah Golden come and to vote, when I went to vote they gave me the ballot paper they did not stamp it, so I told them to stamp the ballot paper, they said no I said you will stamp this ballot paper, we started arguing, then he later stamped the ballot paper then I voted, even my daughter, she paid money to vote. That was I saw during the Election Day. All of these testimonies of 1st appellants’ witnesses regarding allegations of gross irregularities in violation of the Constitution and Elections Law during the October 10, 2017 elections were similarly buttressed by witnesses of the 2nd appellants. Primary amongst them were 1) Atty. Jerold Cole Bangalu who testified that the Final Registration Roll was marred with massive irregularities and fraud; that the provisional registration roll was never published to magisterial areas as required by the elections law and NEC regulations; that there was huge discrepancies between the provisional roll and final roll; that although the exhibition period for the provisional roll should have been for a week to allow voters make corrections to the roll but was unusually cut off due to many outcries from the public as to the discrepancies on the provisional roll; and that instead of addressing those discrepancies the NEC chairman announced that all those with valid voters registration card would be allowed to vote. Some of the discrepancies pointed out by the witnesses were: a) names of voters did not match with the photos, b) males were taken for females, c) duplication of names, amongst others. The witness also stated that the FRR was never published as required by law and that it was only after thorough engagement with the NEC that seven political parties were given the FRR on a pen drive. According to the witness, the FRR given them was dissimilar to that which was posted on the NEC’s website indicating that the NEC operated two separate and distinct FRR; that the SMS system of verification of names on the FRR constituted an