themselves interfered with the data or simply refused to accept that it had bungled the whole transmission system and were unable to verify the data. [281] The petitioners also made claims that some Forms 34A supplied to them did not relate to any of the existing gazetted polling station/tallying centres; that while 15,558,038 people voted for the presidential candidates, 15,098,646 voted for gubernatorial candidates and 15,008,818 voted for Members of Parliament (MPs) raising questions as to the validity of the extra votes in the presidential election. No satisfactory answer was given to the latter issue and we must also hold the 1st respondent responsible for that unexplained yet important issue. [282] Having therefore shown that the transmission of results was done in a manner inconsistent with the expectations of Section 39(1C) of the Elections Act, we must of necessity return to the principles in Articles 81 and 86 of the Constitution which we have already reproduced. Of importance are the expectations of transparency, accountability, simplicity, security, accuracy, efficiency and especially, verifiability of the electoral process. These terms should be understood to refer to: (a) an accurate and competent conduct of elections where ballots are properly counted and tabulated to yield correct totals and mathematically precise results; (b) an election with a proper and verifiable record made on the prescribed forms, executed by authorized election officials and published in the appropriate media; (c) a secure election whose electoral processes and materials used in it are protected from manipulation, interference, loss and damage; Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            119  |  P a g e