as alleged by the petitioners. They also denied the allegation that a substantial number of Forms 34A and Forms 34B do not bear the signatures of the candidates’ agents or the reason for their refusal to sign the forms as is the law. In any event, it was further urged, the refusal by the agents to sign the said forms did not invalidate the results announced. In that regard, they cited the Ghanaian Supreme Court Case of Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo & 3 Others v. John Dramani Mahama & 2 Others28. [90] IEBC also dismissed as unfounded the allegation that in some instances one person was the presiding officer in a considerable number of polling stations. It submitted in that regard that it appointed presiding officers in respect of each of the polling stations in the country as by law prescribed. [91] As regards lack of handing over notes in the forms, the respondents contended that there is no obligation under Regulation 87 Election (General) Regulations, 2012 for the constituency returning officers to indicate the number of Forms 34A handed over to them and that based on the Maina Kiai decision, the returning officers were exempted from physically availing the statutory forms at the NTC. Further, it was urged that the integrity of Forms 34A and Forms 34B was not compromised and the results contained therein are valid. IEBC also denied that it manufactured any results or that 14,078 Forms 34A have fatal and irredeemable irregularities. It asserted instead that the results of the 28  Nana Addo Dankwa akufo-Addo & 3 others v JohnDramani Mahama & 2 Others, WRIT No. J 1/6/2013.   Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            36  |  P a g e