(a) Why was the 1st respondent not able to immediately supply the petitioners’ agents with all the Forms 34 B upon declaration of results if as it was submitted, the said results were based on the same, and all of which were said to have been available? (b) Why was the 1st respondent not able to supply all the Forms 34 A (said to be around 11,000) to the petitioners as at 14th August 2017; (4) days after the declaration of results? (c) Were all the scanned copies of Forms 34A electronically transmitted to simultaneously Constituency the with Tallying National Tallying those transmitted Centre in Centre to accordance the with Section 39(1C) of the Elections Act? If so, why would it have been impossible for the 1st respondent to avail those copies to the petitioners? If not, why were they not transmitted in the manner required by the law? [252] We sought answers to these questions as we listened to the submissions of counsel on the emerging conundrum. The submissions of Mr. Nyamodi, on behalf of the 1st respondent, made disturbing if not startling revelations. According to Counsel, the 1st respondent used Forms 34B as opposed to Forms 34A to declare the final results of the presidential election. He emphasized that at the time the final results of the presidential election were declared, all Forms 34B had been collated. It was Counsel’s submission that, the declaration of Sections 39 (2) and (3) of the Elections Act, 2011 by the Court of Appeal as being inconsistent with the Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            105  |  P a g e