unraveled the mysterious puzzle surrounding Forms 34A. Regrettably, according to the information made available to Court, by its appointed experts, the 1st respondent only allowed read-only access to this information without the option to copy in soft version only two hours to the closure of Court proceedings which never fully happened anyway. By this time however, the puzzle had been unraveled in the mind of the Court and we shall shortly explain why. [268] In any event, it is claimed in the petition, and IEBC in its response conceded, that two days to the election date, IEBC announced that it was going to be unable to electronically transmit results from 11,000 polling centres because they were off the range of 3G and 4G network. Consequently, its officers would have to move to spots where they could get network to be able to transmit. Come the election date on 8th August 2017, IEBC claimed it was “unable”   to transmit results from those stations. According to submissions by counsel for IEBC, such inhibition set in place the use of a complementary system of transmission of results envisaged under Section 44A of the Elections Act, which is in essence the physical delivery of Forms 34A to the CTC and hence the delay in the declaration of results from those polling stations. [269] With tremendous respect, we cannot accept IEBC’s said explanation. Failure to access or catch 3G and/or 4G network, in our humble view, is not a failure of technology. Surely IEBC’s ICT officials must have known that there are some areas where network is weak or totally lacking and should have made provision for alternative transmission. It cannot have dawned Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            112  |  P a g e