irregularities the cumulative effect of which fundamentally and negatively impacted the integrity of the election. Security Features: Now You see them, Now you see them not: [335] The most serious of the irregularities alleged by the petitioners was that many of the prescribed Forms 34A, 34B and 34C that were used in the election had no security features. Other such forms had different layouts and security features. Some forms were said to have had no serial numbers, bar codes, official stamps, water marks, anti-copying, among others. In response thereto, the 2nd respondent contended that the forms were protected by enhanced security features. Mr. Mansur for the 1st respondent submitted that the reason the petitioners could not see the security features, was that the latter had been relying on the wrong barcode readers which could not detect the embedded security features. [336] The other irregularity alleged by the petitioners was that many Forms 34A and 34B did not contain handover notes in the prescribed manner. This irregularity allegedly offended Regulation 87(1) (b) of the Election Regulations. The petitioners also contended that many other forms bore no official stamp of the 1st respondent, while the stamps used on other forms were not official. The respondents however contended that hand over notes and official stamps were not a legal requirement. [337] The petitioners also alleged that many Forms 34A and 34B were signed by unknown persons, while many others were signed by the same presiding or returning officers. Some Forms 34A originated from unPresidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            145  |  P a g e