[182] The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) as amicus curiae emphasized the centrality of a voter in a democratic government and urged that in interpreting the meaning and scope of Section 83, this Court should consider its history and meaning, its interpretation in the 2013 Raila Odinga case as well as its constitutionality. [183] Mr. Mwenesi, learned Counsel for LSK urged that Section 83 was not straightforward and posed difficulties in judicial interpretation as to what an administrative irregularity which can invalidate an election constitutes. Further, that in interpreting that section in the 2013 Raila Odinga case, this Court laid out a broad test which is whether an alleged breach of law negates or distorts the expression of the people’s electoral intent. Counsel contended that from the court’s interpretation, breach of the law however grave is not by itself sufficient to invalidate an election, where it is not shown that the breach negated the voters’ intent. [184] The LSK argued that the application of Section 83 is limited in content and scope and only applies where the validity of an election is restricted to irregularities. According to LSK, Section 83 has no application where there is violation of the Constitution or substantive provision of elections laws and Regulations. It was urged, that Section 83 is only applicable where there are minor irregularities which do not affect the overall outcome of the election. It is the submission of LSK that giving the provision a different meaning leads to an absurdity. [185] The Attorney General submitted that the threshold required to disturb an election is one where evidence discloses profound irregularities Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            75  |  P a g e