22. Just one observation to make in response to the petitioner's submission on public policy consideration. It may be the case that giving a very strict definition to the term "candidate" may and "will give persons who intend to nominate to delay their nominations until the last date in order for them to bribe voters and escape punishment. 23. But a complainant is not left without a remedy. He has recourse to lodging a complaint with the police to arrest and charge a candidate, turned member/politician, for bribery under the ordinary criminal law process under Section 103 ofthe Criminal Code. 24. The end result, a person is a candidate when he has nominated. 25. As to when the first respondent nominated is hotly contested. Two different dates were put forward as the date of nomination of the first respondent; one 2H^ April 2017 and the other, 24^^ April 2017. 26. The evidence in Form 23 relied upon by the respondents showed that the date of nomination ofthe first respondent was 24^^^ April 2017, 27. The petitioner relied on the evidence of Mrs. Warpin who said that the date of nomination ofthe first respondent was 21^^ April 2017, 28. 1 uphold the respondents' submission that Form 23 is the official record of the second respondent. Recorded on that document (Form 23) is a date of 24^ April 2017. In my view, the date recorded in Form 23 is prima facie evidence of the date of nomination of a candidate, in this case, the first respondent. 29. At the same time there is evidence from the petitioner's witness, Mrs. Warpin that 24^^ April 2017 was not the date of nomination of the first respondent. It was 21^* April 2017. 30. All 1 have to be satisfied at this stage is whether there is rm evidence to prove the date of nomination. 1 cannot find that there is none because there is. That evidence is from Mrs. Warpin and it is in direct conflict with Form 23. (Emphasis added).