19.4. In the context of a challenge to an election return, it is not enough for the applicant to give broad, sweeping statements as a basis for the relief he seeks. He must illustrate in his papers how the tally of votes was affected by an issue that he raises as a ground for his challenge. He fails to do so. 20. Ad Para 4.5.27- 4.5.31 This is denied. 20.1. The bundle of evidence that the applicant refers to as containing proof of the malpractice he alleges occurred during postal voting was not served on the respondents. It is unclear whether it was issued together with the applicant’s application. 20.2. The applicant’s premise that 7500 police officers voted through the postal voting system in the 2018 general election is not correct. The total number of people that were permitted to cast a postal vote in the 2018 general election was 7464, as appears in the schedule attached hereto marked Annexure ‘I’. A consideration of annexure ‘I’ shows that of the total number, police officers constituted 4482. It is, therefore, misleading for the applicant to aver that some 7500 postal ballots for police officers were processed in the 2018 general election and ought to be invalidated. 20.3. The chief question that must be considered on this issue is whether the secrecy of the ballot was compromised. The Electoral Commission has received