(e) the 2nd Respondent declared the 1st Respondent as duly elected President of the Republic of Malawi with 1,940,709 votes representing 38.57% of the votes cast while the 2nd Petitioner was declared to have polled 1,781,740 votes representing 35.41% of the total votes cast; (f) The 2nd Respondent failed and neglected to act with due diligence in the control, management and administration of the 21st May, 2019 elections and failed to properly respond to the written communication urging it to address the complaints lodged and conduct an audit of the election which amounted to biased conduct and gross and unjustifiable dereliction of its constitutional duties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Constitution; (g) All in all, the 2nd Respondent showed great bias for the 1st Respondent and against the 2nd Petitioner thereby failing in its duty to act impartially as its position requires in the administration and management of an election. 22.11 Whether, from an analysis of results from 78 constituencies as at the date of filing the 2nd Petitioner’s petition, the irregularities mentioned herein affected in excess of 1,412, 105 votes as follows: (a) duplicate tally sheets in excess of 523 (b) tippexed tally sheets in excess of 176 (c) counterfeit or fake tally sheets in excess of 70 (d)tally sheets altered in excess of 634 22.12 Whether from the time that the 2nd Petitioner was seen to be leading, votes that were cast for him were not being added to the tally of votes by officers of the 2nd Respondent; and that the effect of this was that his total result was not rising significantly whilst that of the 1st Respondent, who was lagging behind, was rising. 22.13 Whether the 1st Respondent could not have been declared as duly elected as President had the 2nd Respondent acted with due diligence in the control, management and administration of the said elections. 16