[375] In the impugned presidential election, one of the most glaring irregularities that came to the fore was the deployment by the 1st respondent, of prescribed forms that either lacked or had different security features. The 1st respondent had submitted by way of affidavit and in open court that out of abundant caution, it had embedded into the prescribed Forms, such impenetrable security features that it was nigh impossible for anyone to tamper with them. The Court was also reminded that this was done, despite it being not a requirement by the law. [376] However, the scrutiny ordered and conducted by the Court, brought to the fore, momentous disclosures. What is this Court for example, to make of the fact that of the 290 Forms 34B that were used to declare the final results, 56 of them had no security features? Where had the security features, touted by the 1st respondent, disappeared to? Could these critical documents be still considered genuine? If not, then could they have been forgeries introduced into the vote tabulation process? If so, with what impact to the “numbers”? If they were forgeries, who introduced them into the system? If they were genuine, why were they different from the others? We were disturbed by the fact that after an investment of tax payers money running into billions of shillings for the printing of election materials, the Court would be left to ask itself basic fundamental questions regarding the security of voter tabulation forms. [377] Form 34C, which was the instrument in which the final result was recorded and declared to the public, was itself not free from doubts of authenticity. This Form, as crucial as it was, bore neither a watermark, nor serial number. It was instead certified as being a true copy of the original. Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            163  |  P a g e