116 polling place so that in the event there was a court challenge, they would have been able to point to the irregularities that were reported by their agents, observers or representatives from each center; that the communications from the polling places would not just be by calls but also, and primarily by text messages which would note the phones from the messages were being sent, would indicate the polling station involved, and which could be forwarded to the NEC and reduced into writing that would form part of the evidence to demonstrate the widespread nature of the violations or irregularities or fraud. It is that kind of evidence that would be viewed persuasively by the Court. It is insufficient that they would cite only a few incidents and call upon the Court to speculate that those incidents occurred at every voting center, without the production of the necessary evidence or statistics that such incidents did occur at those other centers for which evidence were not presented. We note that in argument they alluded to other political parties and independent observers holding similar views as the appellants. We take note that the public records do show that several other political parties expressed “solidarity” with the claims of the Liberty Party and the actions being taken by that Party. We are disappointed however that they believed that those parties would believe that this would be sufficient in law to meet the burden of proof which the Liberty Party was required to meet under the law. The only Party sufficiently brave and believing convincingly in the cause advocated by the Liberty Party was the Unity Party, which filed a motion to intervene, and having been allowed to intervene, presented additional evidence and claims in regards to acts and actions of the NEC. Had the other political parties, by merely sitting on the fence and expressing “solidarity” with the Liberty Party, they could also have presented additional evidence which would probably have further buttressed the evidence of the Liberty Party and the Unity Party as may have enable the evidence to reach the threshold under the law to sustain the prayer that the October 10, 2017 elections be cancelled and that a rerun, as opposed to a run-off election, should be held. But that evidence was not sufficiently present, in the mind of the Court, to warrant granting the prayer of the appellants for a rerun. Indeed, at the hearing before this Court, one of counsel for the second appellants was asked as to whether they had representatives or agents at each of the polling centers to ensure the protection of the interest of the party and its