[55] On his part, the 3rd respondent agreed with the 1st and 2nd respondents’ contention that the petitioners had not demonstrated, orally or by documentary evidence, how the conduct of the election failed to comply with the governing law. In that context, he cited the case of Bush v. Gore13 and urged that the Court in determining the petition before it, should keep in mind the role of the Court in presidential election petitions. The Supreme Court of the United States of America in that case had held: “… None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution’s design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere…” [56] Consequently, all the respondents dismissed the petitioners’ contention that IEBC abdicated its role and duty and averred that IEBC discharged its mandate in accordance with the Constitution and applicable body of electoral laws and the sovereign power of the people was exercised through the presidential election held on 8th August, 2017. It was their case therefore that the results were accurately tallied, collated and declared in accordance with Article 138(10) of the Constitution. 13 Bush v. Gore 531 US 98(2000).   Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            22  |  P a g e