[236] All these legislative enactments have one objective; to ensure that in conformity with the Constitution, the elections are free, fair, transparent and credible. [237] It is important to note that the terms “simple, accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable and transparent” engrafted into these provisions, are the selfsame constitutional principles in Articles 10, 38, 81 and 86. We must in that context now proceed, to determine whether, the 1st respondent, conducted the presidential election in accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution and the law. The Mystery of Forms 34A and the conundrum of electronic transmission [238] By far, the most critical and persistently claimed non-compliance with the law, was that the 1st respondent announced results on the basis of Forms 34B before receiving all Forms 34A. It was also alleged that the results announced in Forms 34B were different from those displayed on the 1st respondents’ Public Web Portal. This was contrary to Section 39 (1C) of the Elections Act. The petitioners also argued that the non-compliance was in violation of Articles 81(e) and 86 of the Constitution. The noncompliance also went contrary to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Maina Kiai. The petitioners also claimed that many results were transmitted from the polling stations unaccompanied by the scanned image of Form 34A, contrary to Section 39 (1C) of the Elections Act as read together with Sections 44, and 44 (A) of the Act. Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            100  |  P a g e