received a large number of votes becomes irrelevant because, read together, Sections 39(1C) and 83 of the Elections Act say otherwise. [302] In passing only, we must also state that whereas the role of observers and their interim reports were heavily relied upon by the respondents as evidence that the electoral process was free and fair, the evidence before us points to the fact that hardly any of the observers interrogated the process beyond counting and tallying at the polling stations. The interim reports cannot therefore be used to authenticate the transmission and eventual declaration of results. [303] For the above reasons, we find that the 2017 presidential election was not conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution and the written law on elections in that it was, inter alia, neither transparent nor verifiable. On that ground alone, and on the basis of the interpretation we have given to Section 83 of the Elections Act, we have no choice but to nullify it. (ii) Whether there were irregularities and illegalities committed in the conduct of the 2017 Presidential Election and if in the affirmative, what was their impact, if any, on the integrity of the election? [304] While the impugned election was conducted in violation of relevant constitutional principles, the same was also alleged to have been fraught with illegalities and irregularities that rendered its result unverifiable and thus indeterminate. Illegalities refer to breach of the substance of specific Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            128  |  P a g e