102 addition to the FRR since names that were not found on the FRR given the parties could be found through the SMS system and that there were more than four thousand people who had voter cards but could not vote because their names were not found on the FRR. The witness further testified that the ballot papers used during the October 10, 2017 polls were without serial numbers and that the ballots found in Grand Gedeh County had features of valid ballots contrary to the NEC’s claim that they were ‘Know Your Candidate’ ballots. 2) Josiah Flomo Joekai testified that his name appeared on the provisional registration roll but that during the voting he did not find his name on the final registration roll but was allowed to vote when the presiding officer used the SMS to verify his number; that there was no queue controller to where he voted. The testimony of the witness was impressive, but we are unable to conclude that it did conveyed or demonstrated that the violations were of such high a magnitude that it altered or could have altered the results of the elections. Thus, while we do not dispute the testimonies and do not believe that the appellee sufficiently rebutted the said testimony, we say that as important as it was, it did not, standing alone, overwhelmingly show that it impacted the final results in such manner that if not committed the results would have been different or that the positions of the parties would have changed, as for example, from first position to second position or from second position to third position. What it means for the Court is that the parties, knowing and/or suspicious of how the NEC was playing its role in the elections should have so positioned themselves, both with the mechanic and with the personnel, to ensure that any perceived attempts by the NEC would not materialize and that in the event they saw that the NEC was deviating from the dictates of the law or committing acts not in consonance with what it was expected to be doing, they should have sought recourse to the courts to prevent the NEC committing such violations. In response to all of these allegations and supported testimonies of irregularities and gross violations of the Constitution, New Elections Law and NEC’s regulations alleged by the 1st and 2nd appellants, the NEC produced two witnesses, none of whom was directly privy to the incidents out of which the appellants’ allegations grew but rather who served in capacities that allowed them to receive feedbacks from NEC’s staffs on the field. The National Elections Commission being a