Form 34A from the constituency returning officers under sub-regulation (1), the Chairperson of the Commission shall tally and complete Form 34C.” However, the 1st respondent had to allegedly modify Form 34C to reflect the entry of Forms 34B, which was the Form declared by the Court of Appeal to be the source document to determine the winner of a Presidential election, instead of Forms 34A. [256] Mr. Nyamodi concluded by reaffirming that the way the 1st respondent structured its transmission system, was largely based on the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Maina Kiai case which did not interfere with or negate the will of the people resident in Form 34A. [257] What was Mr. Nyamodi saying? We were left to ask. Was counsel admitting that the 2nd respondent indeed as claimed by the petitioners, had declared the presidential results without having received all Forms 34A? Was he in the same vein also admitting that not all Forms 34A had been electronically transmitted to the National Tallying Centre from the polling centres as required by law? Where did the language of “statistics” as opposed to “results” emerge from? Was counsel disclosing the fact that fundamental changes had been made to the KIEMS system at the sole discretion of the 1st respondent without reference to all the players in the presidential election contest? [258] Be that as it may, Mr. Nyamodi persistently argued that the conduct by the 1st and 2nd respondents, to wit; of declaring results solely based on Forms 34B without reference to Forms 34A; of not scanning all Forms 34A and simultaneously transmitting them to the NTC; of reconfiguring Form Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            107  |  P a g e