and transparent manner. Where is transparency or verifiability when IEBC, contrary to Articles 35 and 47 of the Constitution, worse still, in contumacious disobedience of this Court’s Order, refuses to open its servers and logs for inspection? [300] Having therefore carefully considered all the affidavit evidence, and submissions of counsel for all the parties, we find and hold, that, the petitioners herein have discharged the legal burden of proving that the 2nd respondent, declared the final results for the election of the president, before the 1st respondent had received all the results from Forms 34A from all the 40,883 polling stations contrary to the Constitution and the applicable electoral law. We also find and hold that, the 2nd respondent, declared, the said results solely, on the basis of Forms 34B, some of which were of dubious authenticity. We further find that the 1st respondent in disregard of the provisions of Section 39 (1C), of the Elections Act, either failed, or neglected to electronically transmit, in the prescribed form, the tabulated results of an election of the president, from many polling stations to the National Tallying Centre. [301] At this juncture, we must restate that, no evidence has been placed before us to suggest that, the processes of voter registration, voter identification, manual voting, and vote counting were not conducted in accordance with the law. As a matter of fact, nobody disputes the fact that on 8th August, 2017, Kenyans turned out in large numbers, endured long hours on queues and peacefully cast their votes. However, the system thereafter went opaquely awry and whether or not the 3rd respondent Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            127  |  P a g e