in the management of the electoral process, and where the non-compliance affected the validity of the election. He concurred with the decision of the Supreme Court in the 2013 Raila Odinga case where this Court laid out the guiding criteria for disturbing an election result. [186] The Attorney General pointed out comparative judicial decisions which affirm the above position. He cited the Supreme Court in Ghana in Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo & 2 Others v. John Dramani Mahma & 2 Others92, where the position was that elections ought not to be held void by reasons of transgressions of the law without any corrupt motive by the returning officer or his subordinate, and where the court is satisfied that notwithstanding the transgressions, an election was in substance conducted under the existing election law. He also relied on the case of Woodward v. Sarsons93 where the court was of the opinion that an election is declared void by the common law applicable, where the tribunal asked to void it is satisfied that there was no real election at all. [187] It is instructive to note that this Court in the 2013 Raila Odinga case, did not render an authoritative interpretation of Section 83 of the Elections Act as read together with the relevant provisions of the Constitution. At best, the Court only made a tangential reference to this Section while addressing the applicable twin questions of “Burden and Standard of Proof” in an election petition. We therefore think that now is the time this Court should pronounce itself on the meaning of Section 83 of the Elections Act. 92 93 Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo & Others v. John Dramani Mahma & 2 Others, WRIT No. J1/6/2013. Woodward v Sarsons (1875) LR 10 CP 733. Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            76  |  P a g e