31. As to which evidence should be accepted is a matter for me to decide at the close of all evidence. 32. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that there is no evidence to prove the date of nomination ofthe first respondent. Elector 33. There is no contest that the person identified as being bribed is one August Punion. There is also no contest that the name August Punion is not on the Common Roll for Gazelle Open electorate. There is a name "Lakit Punion". 34. August Punion said that he is also known as Lakit Punion. 35. An "elector" is defined in Section 3 of the Organic Law as " a person whose name appears on a Roll as an elector 36. If August Punion said that he is an elector, his name, must appear on the Common Roll for Gazelle Open electorate. This view appears too legalistic and technical but that is the only way to put to rest the elector identity issue. Here the name "August Punion" does 37. He can explain why he is also Lakit Punion or why the Common Roll is flawed and should not be accepted on face value, or he was allowed at polling to vote under the name, Lakit Punion, but the bottom line is, August Punion which is the name he swore his affidavit by, does not appear anywhere in the Common Roll. 38. Compare this case with Bryan Kramer v. Nixon Philip Duban & Andrew Trawen (No.3)(2013) N5215 where a no case application was refused because no Common Roll for the electorate was produced to verify if the persons who were allegedly bribed and unduly influenced and called to give evidence that they were registered voters, were accepted as registered voters. 39. Here, there is a Common Roll which does not support the assertion by August Punion that he is an elector within the meaning of under Section 3 of the Organic Law.