[239] In response, the 1st respondent submitted that the difference in the results announced on the Forms and the Public Web Portal did not offend any law or regulation in view of the fact that the results in the forms were final, while the results on the Public Web Portal were mere statistics. Mr. Nyamodi, counsel for the 1st respondent also submitted that in view of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Maina Kiai, the system of transmission had to be reconfigured to allow for manual transmission. Counsel explained that the source document that the 1st respondent relied on to do so was no longer Form 34A but Form 34B. [240] Likewise, counsel submitted, a similar fate had befallen the Form 34C in terms of format and structure. Towards this end, counsel informed the Court that the original Form 34C which had contained a Form 34A tally was reconfigured by the first respondent to exclude that tally so as to conform to the decision of the Appellate Court in Maina Kiai. [241] As for the controversy surrounding the electronic transmission of results, counsel submitted that such transmission, was a mere conveyance belt and nothing more. To this, Mr. Ngatia, counsel for the 3rd respondent would later add that, the electronic transmission with which the petitioner was obsessed was like a matatu and no more. What was important, counsel urged, was what was conveyed (meaning, the “results”) as opposed to the manner in which it was conveyed (meaning the “electronic transmission”). [242] The 1st respondent also submitted that the security feature of the Kenya Integrated Electoral Management System (KIEMS) was programmed to capture and transmit only one image. In some instances, Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            101  |  P a g e