had the opportunity to seek the unsealing of election residue and inspect same for any sample ballots. 15.5. Further still, the counting process at the close of the poll is witnessed by polling agents and election observers, if any instances of sample ballots having found their way into ballot boxes, as the applicant alleges, existed, surely the thousands of polling agents and scores of election observers across the country would have picked that up during the count. 16. Ad Para 4.5.20- 4.5.23 This is denied. 16.1. This issue has already been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction having come before the Electoral Court in EC09/18, a matter between People’s Democratic Party v Chairperson of ZEC & Anor, wherein the applicant challenged the design of the presidential election ballot paper on grounds identical to those raised herein by the applicant. The Electoral Court found in that matter that the presidential election ballot, as designed by the Electoral Commission, was in compliance with the law. 16.2. The ballot paper design, having followed the law, cannot give rise to an allegation of bias on the part of the Electoral Commission. In any event, whilst the applicant alleges that the ballot paper design was meant to afford the 1st respondent a material advantage, he does not state in what way such advantage is alleged to have arisen or manifested. He attaches no affidavits from any voters who aver that the design of the ballot paper caused them to vote for the 1 st