i. … n. … [342] The scrutiny process was conducted under the supervision of the Registrar of this Court and a report filed. The report was endorsed by the petitioners and all the respondents as being a fairly accurate reflection of what the partial scrutiny had unearthed. [343] According to the report, the process started with the Registrar counting to ascertain the number of Forms delivered by the 1st respondent. We note as per the Registrar��s count, that the 1st respondent availed to her the following: 1 Form 34C, 291 Forms 34B, and 41,451 Forms 34As. The Registrar also made the following observations: (a) Certain forms 34As appeared to have been duplicated; (b) Certain forms 34As and 34Bs appeared to be carbon copies; (c) Certain forms 34As and 34Bs appeared to be photocopies; (d) Some of the forms had no evidence of being stamped or signed. [344] The report nonetheless states that the petitioners chose to focus on distinguishing the genuine from the fake forms by checking whether the forms contained the following security features namely: the presence of a watermark using the UV reader; colour of the forms; serialization; Microtext; X10 magnification; Column for comments on the form; Format of the forms; and Anti-copy. The petitioners resorted to the use of a UV Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            149  |  P a g e