Elections Observation Group (ELOG), a local observer group, which deployed one of the largest observer delegates, the petitioners had very good representation of agents, and even where agents failed to sign the prescribed Forms, that does not on itself invalidate the results as provided for under Regulations 62(3) and 79(6) of the Elections (General) Regulations, 2012. (vi) Unprecedented and contradictory quantity of rejected votes [78] According to the 1st and 2nd respondents, the rejected votes did not account for 2.6% of the total votes cast as contended by the Petitioners. They submitted instead that the total number of rejected ballots was 81,685 as declared in Form34C, a percentage of 0.54% of the votes cast. They thus urged that the rejected ballots were properly excluded from valid votes in accordance with the law and this Court’s decision in the 2013 Raila Odinga case. They therefore reiterated that the figures on the public portal and media were not results but statistics hence cannot be taken as proof of rejected votes. Mr. Chiloba further deposed that any variance between the actual number of rejected votes on Form 34C and the public portal were as a result of human error and did not affect significantly the outcome of the election. [79] In response to the petitioners’ contention that the Supreme Court ought to re-visit its decision in the 2013 Raila Odinga case on rejected votes, the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted that in arriving at that decision, the Court considered the relevant provisions of the Constitution, Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            31  |  P a g e