[263] Clearly, with this provision in mind, the Court of Appeal in Maina Kiai decision, was categorical as it rendered itself thus: “We are satisfied that with this elaborate system, the electronic transmission of the already tabulated results from the polling stations, contained in the prescribed forms, is a critical way of safeguarding the accuracy of the outcome of elections, and do not see how the appellant or any of its officers (read 1st respondent) can vary or even purport to verify those results…” Further, the Court of Appeal stated thus: “The appellant, as opposed to its chairperson, upon receipt of prescribed forms containing tabulated results for election of president electronically transmitted to it from the near 40,000 polling stations, is required to tally and “verify” the results…” [264] The appellate Court had earlier made a pronouncement with which we are in total agreement, to the effect that: “It is clear …that the polling station is the true locus for the free exercise of the voters’ will. The counting of the votes as elaborately set out in the Act and the Regulations, with its open, transparent and participatory character using the ballot as the primary material, means, as it must, that the count there is clothed with a finality not to be exposed to any risk of variation or subversion.” [265] Given this very clear elucidation of the law regarding the imperative for electronic transmission of results from the polling station to the NTC, how could the Court of Appeals’ decision in Maina Kiai have provided a Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            110  |  P a g e