on IEBC’s ICT officials, two days to the elections, that it could not access network in some areas. [270] In stating so, we note that under Regulations 21, 22, and 23 of the Elections (Technology) Regulations 2017, IEBC was required to engage a consortium of telecommunication network service providers and publish the network coverage at least 45 days prior to the elections. In that regard, we take judicial notice of the fact that, in one of its press briefings preceding the elections, IEBC assured the country that it had carefully considered every conceivable eventuality regarding the issue of the electronic transmission of the presidential election results, and categorically stated that technology was not going to fail them. IEBC indeed affirmed that it had engaged three internet service providers to deal with any network challenges. We cannot therefore accept IEBC’s explanation of alleged failure of technology in the transmission of the presidential election results. The so-called failure of transmission was in our view a clear violation of the law. [271] In any case, in his affidavit, Mr. Muhati, IEBC’s ICT director, as stated, averred that in polling stations off the range of 3G and 4G network coverage, presiding officers (POs) were instructed to move to points with network coverage or to the Constituency Tallying Centres in order to electronically transmit results. It is important to note that once the POs, who were off the network range, scanned the results into Forms 34A and typed the text messages of the same into the KIEMS and pressed the “SUBMIT”   key, a process IEBC told the country was irreversible, all that remained was for the POs to move to vantage points where 3G or 4G Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            113  |  P a g e