[114] As regards standard of proof, he submitted that presidential elections, being sui generis in character, the standard of proof varies between the balance of probability to beyond reasonable doubt depending on the allegation of irregularity or non – compliance with the electoral laws in issue. He cited the case of Simmons v. Khan35 in support of that proposition. [115] The Attorney General in addition urged that Section 83 of the Elections Act captured the general standard in our jurisdiction. In his view, and citing the 2013 Raila Odinga case, the threshold required to disturb an election is one where evidence discloses profound irregularities in the management of the electoral process, and non-compliance that affected the validity of the election. [116] Comparatively, the Attorney General cited the Supreme Court of Ghana in Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo & Others v. John Dramani Mahma & 2 Others,36 where the position of that court was that elections ought not to be held void by reasons of transgressions of the law without any corrupt motive by the returning officer or his subordinate, and where the court is satisfied that the election was, notwithstanding those transgressions, a real election and in substance was conducted under the existing election law. Also cited was Woodward v. Sarsons37 where the court was of the opinion that an election is declared void by the common law applicable, where the tribunal asked to void it is satisfied that there was no real election at all or that the election was not really conducted under 35  Simmons v Khan EWHC B4 (QB) 2008.   Addo Dankwa Akufo   Addo & 2 Others v. John Dramani Mahma & 2 Others, WRIT No. J 1/6/2013.   37  Woodward v Sarsons (1875) LR 10 CP 733; [1874-80] ALL ER Rep 262.   36  Nana Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            46  |  P a g e