56.2. The applicant’s assumption that the assistance of voters in the 2018 general election constituted an irregularity/ serious electoral malpractice finds no basis in any evidence before the court. In fact, apart from the bald allegation, the applicant presents no evidence to substantiate his claim. 56.3. The applicant’s further allegation that the assistance of voters ought to be linked to “voter intimidation and the SMS being sent to prospective voters” and thus had a “huge effect on the election” is also not substantiated by evidence. 57. Ad Para 6.6.2.1 The collation of results of some polling stations twice was a data capture error whose extent has no material effect on the result of the presidential election. After correction of the double entries the 1st respondent still meets the statutory threshold of 50% plus 1. This issue is addressed further in the expert statistical analysis that is attached to my affidavit which deals with the expert reports presented by the applicant and the other minor data capture errors identified in the applicant’s founding papers. I attach that report hereto marked Annexure ‘Z’. 58. Ad Para 6.6.21 This is denied. 58.1. No polling stations disappeared on polling day. The applicant does not state the names of the polling stations that he alleges to have disappeared on polling day.