14 HH 307-18 HC 4863/18 verification and scrutinization exercise, the respondent changed colour. Such attitude being contradictory unfortunately leads to suspicion which may be unfounded that there are skeletons within the Provisional Voters Roll which the respondent seeks to withhold. The respondent has a duty and obligation to act and discharge its functions especially in an emotive issue such as the compilation and authenticity of the Voters Roll in a constitutional democracy, in such a manner that unfounded suspicions of impropriety are completely dispelled. It is illogical in my view to tell a person to scrutinize a document to which access has been opened but then refuse to provide a copy of it. What is there to protect? A person scrutinizing the Provisional Voters Roll can take notes of anomalies inasmuch as a person who scrutinizes a copy given to him to carry away with him. So one wonders, where the problem is? In my determination, l can only caution that the respondent should not be averse to scrutiny of the performance of its public functions. If the Provisional Voters Roll is construed as a working document consisting of inputs or data capture of voters made by the respondent’s officers and the same has been opened to the public for scrutiny and correction, there would appear to me to be no cognizable and valid reason to withhold the issue of a copy of the information which was captured and has been opened up for scrutiny and corrections. At the end of the day, the corrected, revised and Final Voters Roll is the one that the respondent will use during elections. If any person wants to impugn it using any contrary information obtained from the Provisional Voters Roll surely, the respondent will not be prejudiced as it can always explain any changes. Is this not what transparency and responsiveness entails? Having and allowing interested parties to scrutinize and compare information available at all times should be encouraged. In my view, it is consistent with the principles of transparency and responsiveness for the respondent to accede to the request because if as accepted to be the law, voter registration is a continuous exercise until the Presidential proclamation is gazetted, then the Voters Roll whether Provisional or Final should be availed for scrutiny and correction all the time so that there are no electoral disputes which may arise based on the content of the Voters Roll. I am in agreement with Mr Maanda’s submission that the respondent is ill advised to hold the view that because the Voters Roll is provisional or is work in progress, there is nothing in it which the applicant will find worthy of analysis. Mr Maanda submitted that having possession of and inspecting the so called Provisional Voters Roll will enable the applicant as with any other interested person to raise issues