Correct answer: A. Lack of legal basis and transparency
Explanation: The direct answer is A, Lack of legal basis and transparency. Rights may sometimes be limited by a valid law for a lawful and justified purpose, but an oral order without a written legal basis is dangerous. Reasoning: a restriction affects citizens; citizens must be able to know the rule, its purpose, and who authorized it; written law permits public scrutiny, judicial review, and consistent application; an unexplained oral command can become arbitrary. Option A is correct because it identifies both the missing authority and the missing openness. Option B, delay in vote counting, concerns election administration, not the legality of restricting rights. Option C, election expense, concerns campaign money. Option D, party registration, concerns recognition of political parties. These do not answer the problem of an unsupported rights restriction. The exact legality of any restriction can depend on the Constitution and law, but the stated concern about no written basis is clearly valid. Memory cue: a restriction on rights needs clear, lawful and reviewable authority.