[2018] CCJ 13 (AJ) (2) Any declaration made pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be made available for inspection at the address of the registering officer.” [32] The legal framework is instructive and unambiguous as it relates to the registration of electors. The qualifications under section 7 must be satisfied and Form 1 must be completed and submitted. Once these steps are taken, regulation 36 expressly gives the enumerator or registering officer two options. One, if satisfied that the applicant is qualified as an elector, he or she, upon the applicant’s photograph being taken, is to cause the applicant’s name and address to be entered in the appropriate register or list or two, where the enumerator or registering officer is not satisfied that an applicant is qualified, he shall issue to the applicant the original of a notice of refusal in the Form 3 set out in the First Schedule. [33] None of the above options has been undertaken by the CEO or her agents. In the courts below, her contention was that the process was ongoing and that Professor Ventose’s grievance was premature as his claim had yet to be approved or refused. At paragraph 114 of the CEO submissions in the Court of Appeal, she went on to state that4: “On the 23rd day of March 2018, the Respondent attended at the EBC to query the status of his Application. He was duly informed that the Application is being processed. To date the Application continues to be processed in spite of all efforts made by the EBC in this regard, as the Decision of the learned Trial Judge has had far reaching implications in relation to verifying and authenticating the three (3) years residence criteria.” [34] It is puzzling, that in March the determination of the claim was deemed ‘ongoing’, despite the clear concession at trial two months prior that the Professor was entitled to a remedy of an Order of Mandamus by virtue of him satisfying the requirements, including the residence requirements. Even more concerning is the Court of Appeal’s holding that, although finding Professor Ventose was qualified to be registered, neither section 7 nor 11 nor any other provision in the ROPA or the 4 Ibid at p 83.