[275] What was IEBC’s answer to the above contention? In his submissions before us, Mr. Nyamodi, learned counsel for IEBC outlined to the Court the mode of the transmission process of the results and submitted that after the manual filling in of the Form 34A, the POs then keyed in the results into the KIEMS kit, took the image of the Form 34A and then simultaneously transmitted the same to the Constituency and National Tallying Centres. Our understanding of this process is that the figures keyed into the KIEMS corresponded with those on the scanned images of Forms 34A. In the circumstances, we do not understand why those figures, which learned counsel referred to as mere “statistics” that did not go into the determination of the outcome of the results, differed. [276] In these circumstances, bearing in mind that IEBC had the custody of the record of elections, the burden of proof shifted to it to prove that it had complied with the law in the conduct of the presidential election especially on the transmission of the presidential election results and it failed to discharge that burden. [277] Of further note is that IEBC strenuously opposed the petitioners’   application for access to its servers, claiming that such access would compromise the security of the data in those servers. After considering the application, we overruled that objection and partly allowed the application. Though we did not therefore accept IEBC’s said claim of compromising the security of its servers, considering the fact that having spent billions of taxpayers’   money IEBC should have set a robust backup system, nevertheless to assuage those fears, we granted the petitioners a “read only access”  which included copying where the petitioners so wished. The report Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            115  |  P a g e