light reader (DoCash model) to ascertain the presence of or otherwise of the watermark on the forms. [345] Based on that process, the Registrar’s report can be summarized as follows; On Form 34C, the petitioners noted that the Form 34C presented did not have a watermark and serial number and it looked like a photocopy. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent observed that the form was a copy of the original duly certified by an advocate of the High Court. Clearly, therefore the IEBC did not avail to parties and the Court the original Form 34C but a copy certified by an advocate. [346] With regard to Forms 34B, the petitioners were availed with a total of 291 Forms. These were to represent the 290 Constituencies as provided for under Article 97(1) (a) of the Constitution. The extra one form represented the diaspora vote. It is noted that in scrutinizing those forms, the parties formulated a checklist which included confirming whether the forms had been signed and stamped by the returning officer and agents, and whether the “hand over” and “take over’ section had either been filled or not. [347] From the above exercise, the following were the findings; it was recorded that out of the 291 Forms 34B scrutinized 56 forms bore no watermark, 5 forms had not been signed by the returning officer, 31 forms had no serial numbers, 32 forms had not been signed by the respective party agents, the “hand over” section of 189 forms had not been filled and the “take over” section of 287 forms had not been filled. Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            150  |  P a g e