33 The Defendant National Elections Commission took the witness and presented four witnesses for qualification and sequestration. The Defendant witnesses included C. A. Lamin Lighe, Joseph A. Yarsiah, Deddeh Buway-Pusah and Floyd Sayor. The first of Defendant witnesses to take the witness stand was C. A. Lamin Lighe, the Executive Director of the NEC. Witness Lighe testified to the following; that the elections were free, fair and transparent; that it is the first in our election history that the polling staff met the voters in the queue as early as 4:00 A. M. making it difficult for the queue controller to place voters in their proper queue to vote; that there were challenges in the recruitment of competent polling staff; that the Commission has earlier requested professional institutions to offer professionals to serve as polling staff but only one institution responded; that the staff were challenged in finding the names of voters on the FRR even though their names were on the FRR; that there were witnesses of the Complainant who testified that their names were not on the FRR but witness Lihge demonstrated inshowing witness Josiah Joekai and witness Wilmot Paye being on the FRR; that there is no addendum to the FRR but the procedure allow for addition to the FRR which was done in 2005, 2011, 2014 and 2017; that the ballot paper has a serial number on the stub; that at the Tokpa Polu Public School, the Presiding Officer erroneously wrote 1109 in favor of candidate on the CDC ticket, but the error was corrected and only 110 votes were processed in favor of the CDC. The Defendant second and final witness was Joseph A. Yarsiah the Director of Political Affairs. Witness Yarsiah testified to the following; that all political Parties including the Complainants were informed of all major activities of the Commission through the IPCC meetings; that the political parties were informed of and taught how to use the SMS system and that Cole Bangalu phone number was used during the demonstration; that he informed the political parties of the preparation for the run-off; that the Unity Party and the Coalition for Democratic Change have agreed to go to run-off; that both the CDC and UP have asked and the Commission has accepted that two party observers be allowed in the polling place during the run-off; that the Commission disallowed the voting of party observer where they are assigned but not registered; that few polling places opened late in Sinoe County due to the overflowing of the river. Witness Yarsiah testified to difficulties and challenges poll workers faced in getting materials to certain polling places. The Witness demonstrated a video recording of polling workers when log has fallen on the road leading to a Precinct. At the close of oral evidence, the Defendant also submitted for admission into evidence document testified to, marked D/1—D/12 and confirmed. The Defendant documentary and material evidence were duly admitted in to evidence. It is important that the Hearing Officer state the laws that govern this election contestation before making any determination on the evidence presented to him. The laws which the Hearing Officer determine to govern this proceeding are as follows: 1. The burden of proof in an election contestation rests on the contestant. Thus, it is incumbent on the contestant to rebut the prima facie evidence made by the returns and certificate, and he is not relieved of that burden even where the proof connects the contestee with spoliation of poll books 26 Am Jur 2d, Election, Section 342;