WALLIS AJ against the constitutional standard. The Electoral Court or another court required to make this judgment – in the present case, this Court – must weigh all the evidence and, in that light, determine whether the constitutional requirement was satisfied. Because the facts will be different in every instance where the question arises, it is appropriate to say that the existence of a particular deficiency in one case, does not necessarily mean that the presence of the same deficiency in another election held in differing circumstances, will result in the same conclusion. For example, in a national election, the fact that voters, otherwise qualified to vote, are registered in the incorrect voting district, may be of less significance than in a municipal by-election. But late delivery of voters’ rolls, or delivery of rolls with important information missing, may assume even greater significance at the national than the local level. [91] It is undesirable to articulate a general test expressed in language different from that of the Constitution, as that may be misleading. The Court must give full weight to the constitutional commitment to free and fair elections and the safeguard it provides of the right and ability of all who so wish to offer themselves for election to public office. It is essential to hold the IEC to the high standards that its constitutional duties impose upon it. It is insufficient for the Court to say that it has a doubt, or a feeling of disquiet, or is uncomfortable about the freedom and fairness of the election. It must be satisfied on all the evidence placed before it that there are real – not speculative or imaginary – grounds for concluding that they were not free and fair. [92] These seven by-elections fail that test. They were conducted against the background of fears that voters had been wrongly registered in wards where they were not ordinarily resident and not entitled to vote. It transpired that these fears were well-founded. The IEC has proffered no satisfactory explanation for this occurring, seeking instead to shelter behind a contention that it is not obliged to verify voters’ addresses. In adopting that stance, it revealed that it was non-compliant with its statutory obligation to ensure that voters are registered in the voting district in which they are ordinarily resident in over a quarter of cases over a thirteen year period. It also revealed that, in nearly one twelfth of new registrations in the affected wards, it 47