hence the authenticity of the results as announced in Form 34C could not be guaranteed. [352] Counsel further contended that in totality, the number of votes affected in more than 90 Constituencies as a consequence of these irregularities could be as high as five million. Counsel submitted that the random sampling of the Forms 34A depicts numerous irregularities. He argued that some of the forms used were not standardized forms and were not prepared in accordance with the agreement between the 1st and 2nd respondents and the printer. Counsel thus urged the Court to find that the forms did not comply with the statutory forms as required by law. [353] In response, the respondents were categorical that most of the forms met all the standard required features. They stated that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that any of the figures in the forms were inconsistent with what was announced. Further, that the format of the forms was undisturbed. [354] Mr. Muite, SC for the 1st respondent further contended that the only requirement under Regulations 79 (2) (a) and 83 (a) is for the signing of the forms and that there was no requirement for security features. Asked by the Court to explain why some forms bore security features if it was not a requirement of the law, Mr. Muite responded that it was out of ‘abundance of caution’ on the part of the 1st respondent that it did so. Counsel could however not explain why some forms bore security features while others didn’t if indeed they were printed by the same entity. [355] Counsel also argued that there were only 5 Forms 34B that had not been signed by the returning officers but that the 5 had serial numbers as Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            152  |  P a g e