photocopies, carbon copies and not signed. And out of the 291 forms, 56 did not have the watermark feature while 31 did not bear the serial numbers. A further 5 were not signed at all and 2 were only stamped by the returning officers but not signed. In addition, a further 32 Forms were not signed by agents. The above incidences are singled out since they are incidences where the accountability and transparency of the forms are in question. [360] The Court also notes that in her affidavit, Immaculate Kassait, a Director of the 1st respondent deponed as follows: “SECURITY FEATURES OF STATUTORY FORMS 214. THAT I am aware that the Commission developed standards for its electoral goods prior to their procurement. The standards included specific security features for each ballot paper and statutory form in order to prevent duplication, misuse, piracy, fraud, counterfeiting and to improve controls. All the ballot papers and statutory forms used in the 8th August, 2017 election contained these security features. 215. THAT some of the security features employed on the result declaration Forms 34A and 34B used in the 8th August 2017 election include: (a) Guilloche patterns against which all background colors on the various results declaration forms have been printed. These patterns are non – reproducible geometric patterns generated by a special security software used for currency Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            154  |  P a g e