35.4. In all three subsections, the process of verification enjoins ensuring that each return purports to be duly certified by the presiding officer of the polling station concerned or the ward elections officer for the ward concerned or constituency elections officer for the constituency concerned respectively. This is why the original returns are used in the verification process and candidates and their election agents, including the applicant’s election agents, were given full access to those returns during the verification process as I have averred above. 35.5. The provisions of s110 of the Electoral Act are such that the absence of any candidate or his/her election agent does not stop the process prescribed in that section from proceeding to its conclusion. An illustration can be found in the provisions of s110(3)(d) and s110(3)(e) which both require the Electoral Commission’s CEO to act in the presence of those election agents as are present. Section 110 does not, therefore, mandate that a declaration in terms of s110(3)(f) shall only be done where the candidates’ election agents have signed off on the results of the presidential election. In any event, the Electoral Commission’s CEO denies the statements and assurances that are attributed to him in the applicant’s founding papers in this respect and says as much in his affidavit attached hereto and already referenced above. 36. Ad Para 5.9- 6.1 This is denied. The process as provided in the electoral law relating to collation, verification and announcement of presidential election results was followed by the Electoral Commission as I have illustrated herein above. Any mathematical error that may have occurred in the process is neither gross nor sufficient to overturn the