34C to exclude the Form 34A tally and only include the Forms 34B tally; of introducing the language of “statistics” as opposed to “results”; that all these actions, were necessitated, nay, required by the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Maina Kiai decision. [259] We were at pains to understand how the Court of Appeal decision in that case, could have provided a judicial justification for the conduct of the 1stand 2nd respondents. The Attorney General, appearing as amicus curiae, having been so admitted, and despite having been clearly restrained from submitting on the so called impact of the Maina Kiai decision, also appeared to suggest, in his closing remarks that somehow, the Appellate Court’s decision in that case, had changed the landscape of the conduct of elections in the Country. [260] In the above context, we reiterate that the main questions that this Court has to grapple with at this stage are: (a) Whether the 2nd respondent declared the results of the presidential election before he had received all the results tabulated on Forms 34A from all the polling stations. (b) Whether all the Forms 34A had been electronically transmitted from the polling stations to the National Tallying Centre. Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            108  |  P a g e