“Fellow Kenyans, the results I am about to declare, are exclusively based on Forms 34B which I have received from all the 290 constituency tallying centres country-wide. I have not verified these results against those tabulated on Forms 34A from all the 40,800 polling stations countrywide. This may sound strange, but I am simply doing this in compliance with the Court of Appeal’s decision in Maina Kiai. This decision by the Appellate Court requires me to treat the results as tabulated by the various returning officers, as final and not to attempt, to verify them against the electronically transmitted Forms 34A. You will therefore, have to bear with me, as Court Orders must at all times, be obeyed. However, all hope is not lost, since I have availed all the Forms 34A on our Public Portal. Any candidate, election observer, or member of the public, is free to download these forms and compare the results thereon against the ones I am about to declare. If such an exercise should reveal serious discrepancies, then one can petition the Supreme Court to scrutinize them, and even annul them, since the Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes…” [295] He failed to do the above and apart from the duty to “verify”, the 1st respondent also has the responsibility to ensure that the system of voting, counting and tallying of results is “verifiable”. This is in conformity with Article 86 of the Constitution which requires that: “At every election, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission shall ensure that- Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            124  |  P a g e