gazzeted polling stations. Finally, the petitioners alleged that not all pages in some Forms 34B were signed. [338] In response thereto, the 1st respondent argued that Regulation 83 only provides for signing of the forms and that there is no obligation flowing from this Regulation that requires a returning officer to indicate his/her name while signing. Similarly, the 1st respondent argued, that the law does not require that all pages should be signed. Regarding the claim that many forms were signed by the same person in similar handwriting, contrary to Regulation 5 (1A)(a), the respondent contended that the said claim had not been backed by evidence from a hand-writing expert. As for some Forms 34A having originated from un-gazetted polling stations, the respondent dismissed such a claim on grounds that there were no such polling stations. [339] The petitioners further claimed that there were numerous discrepancies between the results declared in Forms 34A and 34B from various polling stations across the Country, contrary to Section 39 of the Elections Act, as read with Regulation 82 of the Regulations thus compromising the integrity of the election. In response, the respondents, countered the accuracy in some of the allegations by providing contrary figures through a number of deponents. However, the 1st respondent also admitted that indeed there were discrepancies in the results in Forms 34A and 34B spread across the Country but attributed the discrepancies to human errors and fatigue of officials. The respondent contended that the discrepancies in question did not in any event affect the result of the election. Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                           ��                                                                146  |  P a g e