6 reasons why the Supreme Court of Kenya rendered a bad ruling.

[Dr. Job]

Kenya's Supreme Court Renders a Bad Ruling

I respect Kenya's Supreme Court Justices but I beg to disagree with the Justices. They rendered a bad decision on Saturday. Here are 6 reasons why.

First, given the highly charged political atmosphere, they should have stayed above the fray, instead of inserting themselves into it by declaring or confirming Kenyatta or Odinga as the winner. Now they risk being seen as "compromised" or "partisan," favoring one candidate over the other.

Second, the SC ordered a re-tally of votes from 22 polling stations out of a total of 33,400. The sample was too small. Admittedly, the Supreme Court had only 6 days to make a ruling and, further, CORD (the Odinga camp) may have suggested a scrutiny of those 22 polling stations. However, if that small sample revealed evidence of irregularities, logic suggests that the large remainder must also contain irregularities that must also be scrutinized. If a portion of the meat is spoilt, would you cut it off and eat the rest?

Third, the decision does not erase the widespread suspicion that there were nefarious attempts to manipulate the results and rig the election. It is a bit of a stretch to attribute the irregularities to "clerical" or "human error." How does one explain:

1. The sudden break-down of IT or electronic transmission of results, necessitating manual tabulation?
2. The break-down of biometric equipment, necessitating voting without biometric verification?
3. The mysterious expansion of over 1 million voters in the electoral register for the presidential election but not for the parliamentary?

I am afraid, these suspicions will linger and no one knows what they will morph into.

Fourth, Kenya is dangerously polarized politically. Uhuru's win of 50.07 of the vote is one the narrowest majority and the "minority" is nearly 50 percent of Kenyans who did not vote for him. That means nearly half of Kenyans are not going to like the Supreme Court decision and will still feel aggrieved. This is dangerous because, in Africa, it takes a small group of determined mal-contents to wreak havoc and mayhem -- let alone half of the electorate.

In 1985, the late General Samuel Doe held elections in Liberia. When it appeared that he was losing, he ordered the vote count halted. Ballot boxes were then transported to a secret location at the army barracks where the votes were tallied and Doe declared the winner. Charles Taylor refused to countenance this contumely and started a "bush war" with only 100 men. The rest is history. Similarly in Uganda, Yoweri Museveni started out with only 27 men.

Fifth, the Supreme Court decision does not ease but would rather exacerbate tension in the country. Kenya is also deeply polarized along tribal and religious lines. Gikuyus voted for Kenyatta, Kalenjin for Ruto and Luo for Odinga. Religion or tribal politics is a very dangerous proposition in any African country. In Kenya, there is a perception that the Gilkuyus have dominated both the political and economic scenes. Of Kenya's three presidents since independence in 1963, two – Jomo Kenyatta and Mwai Kibaki -- have been Gikuyu; Daniel arap Moi is Kalenjin. Further, the Kenyatta family are the largest land owners in Kenya and among the richest in Africa.

In Nigeria, tribal politics led to the Biafran War (1967-70). The Igbo, through their own hard work and determination, had become very successful, dominating senior positions in government, educational institutions, etc. But it bred tribal resentment and persecution, which propelled the Igbo to secede. Over 3 million – mostly Igbos – died in the ensuing war. In Rwanda, tribal politics led to the 1994 genocide, in which 1 million Tutsis were slaughtered. In Ethiopia, tribal politics has stunted that country's growth prospects. In Ivory Coast, it was the politics of religion. The country was split into the Muslim North and Christian South after the Nov 2010 elections. Similarly in Mali, where the Muslim Tuaregs have long chafed under Christian South domination and discrimination. In Kenya, the Mombasa Republican Council, a Muslim group, is demanding secession. They were responsible for a series of attacks on polling stations in the March 4 elections. Clearly, the Kenyan Supreme Court cannot claim to be unaware of these developments. Note: Nearly all the civil wars in post colonial Africa were started by politically marginalized or excluded groups.

Sixth, the Supreme Court's decision – wittingly or not – pokes a finger in the eye of the ICC, which has indicted Kenyatta and Ruto for crimes against humanity. To be sure, the ICC indictment was not the issue being challenged at the Supreme Court but by confirming that Kenyatta and Ruto won the elections, the Supreme Court has indirectly passed judgment on the case. It is as if the Supreme Court is saying the ICC can take a hike. The Supreme Court will not cooperate in bringing Kenyatta and Ruto to justice as it has certified them as winners of the March 4 elections. And, further, the ICC indictment does not disqualify Kenyatta to be president of Kenya when in fact the Supreme Court should have debarred the two from contesting the presidential elections until they cleared their names.

The ICC indictment puts Kenya in a diplomatic quandary if Kenyatta becomes president. He may be shunned diplomatically and risks arrest if he travels to Europe. It is unlikely President Obama will ever invite him to the White house or be seen with him.

At any rate, the SAFEST decision the Supreme Court could have rendered was to order the Electoral Commission to re-tally the votes in ALL polling stations since the sample of 22 polling stations showed some irregularities and if neither candidate secured 50 percent plus one, to schedule a run-off.

A run-off would mop up the stench of tribalism as it would force candidates to canvass for votes or court tribal groups other than their own. It would also put to rest the suspicion that the March 4 vote was manipulated or rigged. My preference would be a re-run of the entire elections because of the high number of rejected ballots. Voters were confused. This time, however, a new Electoral Commissioner should be employed. [The current one, Isaack Hassan, cannot be trusted.] The difference in cost of running a run-off and a complete re-run is likely to be same as it is the same electorate voting again. If a portion of the meat is spoilt, the entire meat should be thrown out.

George Ayittey

 

[Dhuks]

Go jump into the lake for wanting to tarnish every other institution because Rao did not win.

 

[Jammu Africa]

A run-off would mop up the stench of tribalism as it would force candidates to canvass for votes or court tribal groups other than their own. It would also put to rest the suspicion that the March 4 vote was manipulated or rigged. My preference would be a re-run of the entire elections because of the high number of rejected ballots. Voters were confused. This time, however, a new Electoral Commissioner should be employed. [The current one, Isaack Hassan, cannot be trusted.] The difference in cost of running a run-off and a complete re-run is likely to be same as it is the same electorate voting again. If a portion of the meat is spoilt, the entire meat should be thrown out.

I have selected this,,,because i find it,,the most funniest of all,,of the above.

So a run off was the best solution,,,according to you.

But what i understand was that,,,the supreme court's main agenda was
to find out whether,,,if,, Uhuru Kenyatta was elected fairly

 

[Mtu wa Mungu]

Kenya's Supreme Court Renders a Bad Ruling

I respect Kenya's Supreme Court Justices but I beg to disagree with the Justices. They rendered a bad decision on Saturday. Here are 6 reasons why.

First, given the highly charged political atmosphere, they should have stayed above the fray, instead of inserting themselves into it by declaring or confirming Kenyatta or Odinga as the winner. Now they risk being seen as "compromised" or "partisan," favoring one candidate over the other.

Second, the SC ordered a re-tally of votes from 22 polling stations out of a total of 33,400. The sample was too small. Admittedly, the Supreme Court had only 6 days to make a ruling and, further, CORD (the Odinga camp) may have suggested a scrutiny of those 22 polling stations. However, if that small sample revealed evidence of irregularities, logic suggests that the large remainder must also contain irregularities that must also be scrutinized. If a portion of the meat is spoilt, would you cut it off and eat the rest?

Third, the decision does not erase the widespread suspicion that there were nefarious attempts to manipulate the results and rig the election. It is a bit of a stretch to attribute the irregularities to "clerical" or "human error." How does one explain:

1. The sudden break-down of IT or electronic transmission of results, necessitating manual tabulation?
2. The break-down of biometric equipment, necessitating voting without biometric verification?
3. The mysterious expansion of over 1 million voters in the electoral register for the presidential election but not for the parliamentary?

I am afraid, these suspicions will linger and no one knows what they will morph into.

Fourth, Kenya is dangerously polarized politically. Uhuru's win of 50.07 of the vote is one the narrowest majority and the "minority" is nearly 50 percent of Kenyans who did not vote for him. That means nearly half of Kenyans are not going to like the Supreme Court decision and will still feel aggrieved. This is dangerous because, in Africa, it takes a small group of determined mal-contents to wreak havoc and mayhem -- let alone half of the electorate.

In 1985, the late General Samuel Doe held elections in Liberia. When it appeared that he was losing, he ordered the vote count halted. Ballot boxes were then transported to a secret location at the army barracks where the votes were tallied and Doe declared the winner. Charles Taylor refused to countenance this contumely and started a "bush war" with only 100 men. The rest is history. Similarly in Uganda, Yoweri Museveni started out with only 27 men.

Fifth, the Supreme Court decision does not ease but would rather exacerbate tension in the country. Kenya is also deeply polarized along tribal and religious lines. Gikuyus voted for Kenyatta, Kalenjin for Ruto and Luo for Odinga. Religion or tribal politics is a very dangerous proposition in any African country. In Kenya, there is a perception that the Gilkuyus have dominated both the political and economic scenes. Of Kenya's three presidents since independence in 1963, two – Jomo Kenyatta and Mwai Kibaki -- have been Gikuyu; Daniel arap Moi is Kalenjin. Further, the Kenyatta family are the largest land owners in Kenya and among the richest in Africa.

In Nigeria, tribal politics led to the Biafran War (1967-70). The Igbo, through their own hard work and determination, had become very successful, dominating senior positions in government, educational institutions, etc. But it bred tribal resentment and persecution, which propelled the Igbo to secede. Over 3 million – mostly Igbos – died in the ensuing war. In Rwanda, tribal politics led to the 1994 genocide, in which 1 million Tutsis were slaughtered. In Ethiopia, tribal politics has stunted that country's growth prospects. In Ivory Coast, it was the politics of religion. The country was split into the Muslim North and Christian South after the Nov 2010 elections. Similarly in Mali, where the Muslim Tuaregs have long chafed under Christian South domination and discrimination. In Kenya, the Mombasa Republican Council, a Muslim group, is demanding secession. They were responsible for a series of attacks on polling stations in the March 4 elections. Clearly, the Kenyan Supreme Court cannot claim to be unaware of these developments. Note: Nearly all the civil wars in post colonial Africa were started by politically marginalized or excluded groups.

Sixth, the Supreme Court's decision – wittingly or not – pokes a finger in the eye of the ICC, which has indicted Kenyatta and Ruto for crimes against humanity. To be sure, the ICC indictment was not the issue being challenged at the Supreme Court but by confirming that Kenyatta and Ruto won the elections, the Supreme Court has indirectly passed judgment on the case. It is as if the Supreme Court is saying the ICC can take a hike. The Supreme Court will not cooperate in bringing Kenyatta and Ruto to justice as it has certified them as winners of the March 4 elections. And, further, the ICC indictment does not disqualify Kenyatta to be president of Kenya when in fact the Supreme Court should have debarred the two from contesting the presidential elections until they cleared their names.

The ICC indictment puts Kenya in a diplomatic quandary if Kenyatta becomes president. He may be shunned diplomatically and risks arrest if he travels to Europe. It is unlikely President Obama will ever invite him to the White house or be seen with him.

At any rate, the SAFEST decision the Supreme Court could have rendered was to order the Electoral Commission to re-tally the votes in ALL polling stations since the sample of 22 polling stations showed some irregularities and if neither candidate secured 50 percent plus one, to schedule a run-off.

A run-off would mop up the stench of tribalism as it would force candidates to canvass for votes or court tribal groups other than their own. It would also put to rest the suspicion that the March 4 vote was manipulated or rigged. My preference would be a re-run of the entire elections because of the high number of rejected ballots. Voters were confused. This time, however, a new Electoral Commissioner should be employed. [The current one, Isaack Hassan, cannot be trusted.] The difference in cost of running a run-off and a complete re-run is likely to be same as it is the same electorate voting again. If a portion of the meat is spoilt, the entire meat should be thrown out.

George Ayittey

Mleta threadhii nakupongeza kwa uchambuzi unaoangalia suala hili; na mengine yatakayofanana na hili 2015 hapa Tz kwa vile SC of K imeangalia upande mmoja tu wa sarafu.Ikumbukwe kwamba wapigakura 49.7% wlionyimwa haki wataangalia wapi pakupenyea baada ya SC of K kutoa taarifa ya hukumu na pale ambapo watetea haki kama akina Africog wa yule binti Kethi watakapotumia katiba hiyo hiyo ikaonekana kwamba hukumu ilikuwa na agenda nyuma yake; kisiasa Kenya itakuwa imefumua vidonda vya 2007/8 kama alivyosema katika hotuba yake mshindwi katika kesi hiyo. Pia lipo tatizo la ICC ambalo siyo issue dogo maana kuna agenda nyingi za siri za interests za mataifa makubwa; hasa pale ambapo itaonekana kwamba maslahi ya West na East blocks zinagonganishwa. Kumbuka UHURUTO walivyokuwa wanabwata kukemea hizo superpowers wa Magharibi na msimamo wao kwahawa jamaa mpaka sasa; wakati hao ndiyo walioshika mpini kwenye kesi hii. Upo uwezekano wa K kuingia kwenye situatiion kama ZIM kama hukumu hii itafanyiwa kazi na wanaharakati wa K. Mimi niliona kitu katika salamu za Waziri Mkuu wa Uingereza na Rais Obama kama wanazungumza pamoja kitu kimoja cha kusifia wakati hawa hawa jamaa ndiyo waliosema choices have consequences; na hata yule Kofi Anan salamu zao zimeficha siri kubwa katika lugha za kisiasa walizotumia. Yetu macho.
Asante kwa uchambuzi wenye maono ya mbali na ya kutoa changamoto kwa JF tunapoangalia 2015 kwa Tz.

 

[Kulya]

These were the issues before the Supreme Court for determination:

i) As to whether the presidential election held on March 4th 2013, was conducted in a free, fair, transparent and credible manner, in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and all relevant provisions of the law;

it is the decision of the court that the said elections were indeed conducted in compliance with the Constitution and the law.As to whether the presidential election held on March 4th 2013, was conducted in a free, fair, transparent and credible manner, in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and all relevant provisions of the law; it is the decision of the court that the said elections were indeed conducted in compliance with the Constitution and the law.

ii) As to whether the 3rd and 4th Respondents were validly elected and declared as President elect and Deputy President elect of the Republic of Kenya respectively, by the Second Respondent in the presidential elections held on the 4th March 2013;

it is the decision of the court that the 3rd and 4th respondents were validly elected.

iii) As to whether the rejected votes ought to have been included in determining the final tally of votes in favour of each of the Presidential candidate by the 2nd Respondent;

it is the decision of the court that such rejected votes ought not to have been included in calculating the final tallies in favour of each presidential candidate.

iv) As to what consequential declarations, orders and reliefs, that this honorable court ought to grant based on the above determinations, the following are the orders of the Court:


As far as your article is concerned, I see it carries nothing to do with these issues raised before the Court! And the Court reaching this decision, it means the CORD legal team failed to prove on the balance of probabilities as to whether their assertions are true.


And as a food for thought; One spoon of suger doesn't change the salty taste on an ocean!

 

[Mtu wa Mungu]

These were the issues before the Supreme Court for determination:

i) As to whether the presidential election held on March 4th 2013, was conducted in a free, fair, transparent and credible manner, in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and all relevant provisions of the law;

it is the decision of the court that the said elections were indeed conducted in compliance with the Constitution and the law.As to whether the presidential election held on March 4th 2013, was conducted in a free, fair, transparent and credible manner, in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and all relevant provisions of the law; it is the decision of the court that the said elections were indeed conducted in compliance with the Constitution and the law.

ii) As to whether the 3rd and 4th Respondents were validly elected and declared as President elect and Deputy President elect of the Republic of Kenya respectively, by the Second Respondent in the presidential elections held on the 4th March 2013;

it is the decision of the court that the 3rd and 4th respondents were validly elected.

iii) As to whether the rejected votes ought to have been included in determining the final tally of votes in favour of each of the Presidential candidate by the 2nd Respondent;

it is the decision of the court that such rejected votes ought not to have been included in calculating the final tallies in favour of each presidential candidate.

iv) As to what consequential declarations, orders and reliefs, that this honorable court ought to grant based on the above determinations, the following are the orders of the Court:


As far as your article is concerned, I see it carries nothing to do with these issues raised before the Court! And the Court reaching this decision, it means the CORD legal team failed to prove on the balance of probabilities as to whether their assertions are true.


And as a food for thought; One spoon of suger doesn't change the salty taste on an ocean!

Mawazo yako ni mazuri lakini kumbuka siyo tuonavyo mimi na wewe bystanders; cha muhimu ni tunachoona kwamba ndicho wapiga kura asilimia 49.7% watakachoona na yatakayofuatia. Wewe unakuwa kama hujui historia ya K?? Unajua ni nani na nani waliochinjana 2007/8 na kwa nini9 sasa wako pamoja-ICC case marriage- will it last???. Wewe unajua agenda iliyomo ndani ya points za SC of K? Waza Tz ya 2015 kwa somo la matokeo ya K.

 

[Kulya]

That is what is meant by Independence of Judiciary. Naelewa side effects zake, na hizi zitakuja tu kama looser hata taka kukubali matokeo. Kama ilivyoshuhudiwa protesters huko Nyanza.
Influence ya Wests ndio inatumaliza, kwa kujua kabisa kwamba US President ni Luo basi Odinga akajihakikishia ushindi. A good move to african justice dispensation, wests should leave us alone to decide. Hizo pongezi za kinafiki na vitisho kwamba "Some Choices carries Consequences with them" zisitutishe, tutakuwa watumwa milele.

Mawazo yako ni mazuri lakini kumbuka siyo tuonavyo mimi na wewe bystanders; cha muhimu ni tunachoona kwamba ndicho wapiga kura asilimia 49.7% watakachoona na yatakayofuatia. Wewe unakuwa kama hujui historia ya K?? Unajua ni nani na nani waliochinjana 2007/8 na kwa nini9 sasa wako pamoja-ICC case marriage- will it last???. Wewe unajua agenda iliyomo ndani ya points za SC of K? Waza Tz ya 2015 kwa somo la matokeo ya K.

 

[KAPONGO]

These were the issues before the Supreme Court for determination:

i) As to whether the presidential election held on March 4th 2013, was conducted in a free, fair, transparent and credible manner, in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and all relevant provisions of the law;

it is the decision of the court that the said elections were indeed conducted in compliance with the Constitution and the law.As to whether the presidential election held on March 4th 2013, was conducted in a free, fair, transparent and credible manner, in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and all relevant provisions of the law; it is the decision of the court that the said elections were indeed conducted in compliance with the Constitution and the law.

ii) As to whether the 3rd and 4th Respondents were validly elected and declared as President elect and Deputy President elect of the Republic of Kenya respectively, by the Second Respondent in the presidential elections held on the 4th March 2013;

it is the decision of the court that the 3rd and 4th respondents were validly elected.

iii) As to whether the rejected votes ought to have been included in determining the final tally of votes in favour of each of the Presidential candidate by the 2nd Respondent;

it is the decision of the court that such rejected votes ought not to have been included in calculating the final tallies in favour of each presidential candidate.

iv) As to what consequential declarations, orders and reliefs, that this honorable court ought to grant based on the above determinations, the following are the orders of the Court:


As far as your article is concerned, I see it carries nothing to do with these issues raised before the Court! And the Court reaching this decision, it means the CORD legal team failed to prove on the balance of probabilities as to whether their assertions are true.


And as a food for thought; One spoon of suger doesn't change the salty taste on an ocean!

There you are!!!! The problem with some people in Africa is that tO THEM an election can be free and fair ONLY IF HE BELONGS TO THE WINNING SIDE!!! Shorter than that far fetched excusses are hatched here and there to solidfy their weak stand. We all the restructuring and transformations of the legal and election bodies to meet popular demands yet to some people it was meaningless if their candidate was not in the winning side....Shame on them

 

[Kulya]

And the same same people approved the so called independent bodies to enforce their well standardized constitution, that has never been seen under the sun! Shame on them truly.

There you are!!!! The problem with some people in Africa is that tO THEM an election can be free and fair ONLY IF HE BELONGS TO THE WINNING SIDE!!! Shorter than that far fetched excusses are hatched here and there to solidfy their weak stand. We all the restructuring and transformations of the legal and election bodies to meet popular demands yet to some people it was meaningless if their candidate was not in the winning side....Shame on them

 

[Kigogo]

Kenya’s Supreme Court Renders a Bad Ruling

I respect Kenya’s Supreme Court Justices but I beg to disagree with the Justices. They rendered a bad decision on Saturday. Here are 6 reasons why.

First, given the highly charged political atmosphere, they should have stayed above the fray, instead of inserting themselves into it by declaring or confirming Kenyatta or Odinga as the winner. Now they risk being seen as “compromised” or “partisan,” favoring one candidate over the other.

Second, the SC ordered a re-tally of votes from 22 polling stations out of a total of 33,400. The sample was too small. Admittedly, the Supreme Court had only 6 days to make a ruling and, further, CORD (the Odinga camp) may have suggested a scrutiny of those 22 polling stations. However, if that small sample revealed evidence of irregularities, logic suggests that the large remainder must also contain irregularities that must also be scrutinized. If a portion of the meat is spoilt, would you cut it off and eat the rest?

Third, the decision does not erase the widespread suspicion that there were nefarious attempts to manipulate the results and rig the election. It is a bit of a stretch to attribute the irregularities to “clerical” or “human error.” How does one explain:

1. The sudden break-down of IT or electronic transmission of results, necessitating manual tabulation?
2. The break-down of biometric equipment, necessitating voting without biometric verification?
3. The mysterious expansion of over 1 million voters in the electoral register for the presidential election but not for the parliamentary?

I am afraid, these suspicions will linger and no one knows what they will morph into.

Fourth, Kenya is dangerously polarized politically. Uhuru’s win of 50.07 of the vote is one the narrowest majority and the “minority” is nearly 50 percent of Kenyans who did not vote for him. That means nearly half of Kenyans are not going to like the Supreme Court decision and will still feel aggrieved. This is dangerous because, in Africa, it takes a small group of determined mal-contents to wreak havoc and mayhem -- let alone half of the electorate.

In 1985, the late General Samuel Doe held elections in Liberia. When it appeared that he was losing, he ordered the vote count halted. Ballot boxes were then transported to a secret location at the army barracks where the votes were tallied and Doe declared the winner. Charles Taylor refused to countenance this contumely and started a “bush war” with only 100 men. The rest is history. Similarly in Uganda, Yoweri Museveni started out with only 27 men.

Fifth, the Supreme Court decision does not ease but would rather exacerbate tension in the country. Kenya is also deeply polarized along tribal and religious lines. Gikuyus voted for Kenyatta, Kalenjin for Ruto and Luo for Odinga. Religion or tribal politics is a very dangerous proposition in any African country. In Kenya, there is a perception that the Gilkuyus have dominated both the political and economic scenes. Of Kenya’s three presidents since independence in 1963, two – Jomo Kenyatta and Mwai Kibaki -- have been Gikuyu; Daniel arap Moi is Kalenjin. Further, the Kenyatta family are the largest land owners in Kenya and among the richest in Africa.

In Nigeria, tribal politics led to the Biafran War (1967-70). The Igbo, through their own hard work and determination, had become very successful, dominating senior positions in government, educational institutions, etc. But it bred tribal resentment and persecution, which propelled the Igbo to secede. Over 3 million – mostly Igbos – died in the ensuing war. In Rwanda, tribal politics led to the 1994 genocide, in which 1 million Tutsis were slaughtered. In Ethiopia, tribal politics has stunted that country’s growth prospects. In Ivory Coast, it was the politics of religion. The country was split into the Muslim North and Christian South after the Nov 2010 elections. Similarly in Mali, where the Muslim Tuaregs have long chafed under Christian South domination and discrimination. In Kenya, the Mombasa Republican Council, a Muslim group, is demanding secession. They were responsible for a series of attacks on polling stations in the March 4 elections. Clearly, the Kenyan Supreme Court cannot claim to be unaware of these developments. Note: Nearly all the civil wars in post colonial Africa were started by politically marginalized or excluded groups.

Sixth, the Supreme Court’s decision – wittingly or not – pokes a finger in the eye of the ICC, which has indicted Kenyatta and Ruto for crimes against humanity. To be sure, the ICC indictment was not the issue being challenged at the Supreme Court but by confirming that Kenyatta and Ruto won the elections, the Supreme Court has indirectly passed judgment on the case. It is as if the Supreme Court is saying the ICC can take a hike. The Supreme Court will not cooperate in bringing Kenyatta and Ruto to justice as it has certified them as winners of the March 4 elections. And, further, the ICC indictment does not disqualify Kenyatta to be president of Kenya when in fact the Supreme Court should have debarred the two from contesting the presidential elections until they cleared their names.

The ICC indictment puts Kenya in a diplomatic quandary if Kenyatta becomes president. He may be shunned diplomatically and risks arrest if he travels to Europe. It is unlikely President Obama will ever invite him to the White house or be seen with him.

At any rate, the SAFEST decision the Supreme Court could have rendered was to order the Electoral Commission to re-tally the votes in ALL polling stations since the sample of 22 polling stations showed some irregularities and if neither candidate secured 50 percent plus one, to schedule a run-off.

A run-off would mop up the stench of tribalism as it would force candidates to canvass for votes or court tribal groups other than their own. It would also put to rest the suspicion that the March 4 vote was manipulated or rigged. My preference would be a re-run of the entire elections because of the high number of rejected ballots. Voters were confused. This time, however, a new Electoral Commissioner should be employed. [The current one, Isaack Hassan, cannot be trusted.] The difference in cost of running a run-off and a complete re-run is likely to be same as it is the same electorate voting again. If a portion of the meat is spoilt, the entire meat should be thrown out.

George Ayittey

Utakufa kwa hofu na woga....umemtetea sana raia...mwenyewe kakubali kushindwa wewe unawashwa nini....

 

[jerrytz]

''The ICC indictment puts Kenya in a diplomatic quandary if Kenyatta becomes president.''
Too late kaka! Kenyatta is waiting for the inaguration ceremony........................

 

[Dr. Job]

Utakufa kwa hofu na woga....umemtetea sana raia...mwenyewe kakubali kushindwa wewe unawashwa nini....

You need to cut your obsession with me coz at this rate you might start experiencing sleepless nights accompanied by nightmares. Im not here to defend Raila as you try to point out spelling mistakes not withstanding. I'm not speaking on behalf of Raila but for the sake of posterity and the millions of Kenyans who feel disenfranchised by the sham elections.

Finally if you took time to read the article in totality you would realize that these are words of one George Ayittey. You are not a serious guy to engage in debating Kenyan affairs if you really wanted to know.

 

[Dr. Job]

Go jump into the lake for wanting to tarnish every other institution because Rao did not win.

You first sir and I will gladly oblige.

Giving an opinion is not trying to tarnish an institution. And please if you cant stand the heat in the kitchen then you can just keep on passing by. Everything to you has to involve Raila this and Raila that. We are used to your kind.

Lets discuss matters in the post that have been raised by George Ayittey and keep me or Raila out of it please.

 

[tetere]

34,000 voters who were NOT registered electronically were LIMBLESS,DISABLE, FINGERLESS. Good that kenya has the best record of the disabled people. And they are going to need more disabled people to win the next election....

 

[Dr. Job]

I have selected this,,,because i find it,,the most funniest of all,,of the above.

So a run off was the best solution,,,according to you.

But what i understand was that,,,the supreme court's main agenda was
to find out whether,,,if,, Uhuru Kenyatta was elected fairly

This is the part you have conviniently chosen to ignore which would answer the last part of your last sentence:

Second, the SC ordered a re-tally of votes from 22 polling stations out of a total of 33,400. The sample was too small. Admittedly, the Supreme Court had only 6 days to make a ruling and, further, CORD (the Odinga camp) may have suggested a scrutiny of those 22 polling stations. However, if that small sample revealed evidence of irregularities, logic suggests that the large remainder must also contain irregularities that must also be scrutinized. If a portion of the meat is spoilt, would you cut it off and eat the rest?

Third, the decision does not erase the widespread suspicion that there were nefarious attempts to manipulate the results and rig the election. It is a bit of a stretch to attribute the irregularities to "clerical" or "human error."

 

[Dr. Job]

These were the issues before the Supreme Court for determination:

i) As to whether the presidential election held on March 4th 2013, was conducted in a free, fair, transparent and credible manner, in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and all relevant provisions of the law;

it is the decision of the court that the said elections were indeed conducted in compliance with the Constitution and the law.As to whether the presidential election held on March 4th 2013, was conducted in a free, fair, transparent and credible manner, in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and all relevant provisions of the law; it is the decision of the court that the said elections were indeed conducted in compliance with the Constitution and the law.

ii) As to whether the 3rd and 4th Respondents were validly elected and declared as President elect and Deputy President elect of the Republic of Kenya respectively, by the Second Respondent in the presidential elections held on the 4th March 2013;

it is the decision of the court that the 3rd and 4th respondents were validly elected.

iii) As to whether the rejected votes ought to have been included in determining the final tally of votes in favour of each of the Presidential candidate by the 2nd Respondent;

it is the decision of the court that such rejected votes ought not to have been included in calculating the final tallies in favour of each presidential candidate.

iv) As to what consequential declarations, orders and reliefs, that this honorable court ought to grant based on the above determinations, the following are the orders of the Court:


As far as your article is concerned, I see it carries nothing to do with these issues raised before the Court! And the Court reaching this decision, it means the CORD legal team failed to prove on the balance of probabilities as to whether their assertions are true.


And as a food for thought; One spoon of suger doesn't change the salty taste on an ocean!

Nice try.

It doesnt matter if its the decision of the Supreme Court...that is something we already know. We as citizens are also entitled to our opinion because we are not living in the days of the Roman Empire where the word of Ceaser was the word of God. The decision of the Supreme Court can be dissected and critiqued.

And as food for thought: One drop of crocodile bile is enough to poison a whole drum of water....Pokomo proverb.

 

[Dr. Job]

There you are!!!! The problem with some people in Africa is that tO THEM an election can be free and fair ONLY IF HE BELONGS TO THE WINNING SIDE!!! Shorter than that far fetched excusses are hatched here and there to solidfy their weak stand. We all the restructuring and transformations of the legal and election bodies to meet popular demands yet to some people it was meaningless if their candidate was not in the winning side....Shame on them

People who cant engage in a debate end up with sideshows proving their myopic nature to all matters political. There are no stories hatched when the IEBC through their admission agreed to the fact that there 'clerical errors' in the tallying of the votes. Add to the fact that the re-tallying of the 22 polling stations out of 33,400 showed errors in the numbers. Keithi Kalonzo during her presentation also presented video evidence from Makueni where she should errors in the tallying process. Now you want to call these hatched stories?

This petition and the subsequent decision is not about Raila but about the IEBC and how they carried out a sham of an election with no transparency or accountability whatsoever. That is what kenyans are trying to break from...the carelessness of the old guard in doing things with the seriousness they deserve. Wrap your head around that then engage me if you may.

 

[Dr. Job]

MP vows to move bill to sack Supreme Court judges

From left: Supreme Court Judges Njoki Ndungu, Jackton Ojwang, Chief Justice Willy Mutunga, Philip Tunoi, Mohamed Ibrahim and Smokin Wanjala during the delivery of the judgment on the presidential election results petition at the Supreme Court in Nairobi on March 30, 2013. PHOTO / SALATON NJAU


By GODFREY OMBOGO
Posted Tuesday, April 2 2013 at 13:02

Nyakach MP Aduma Owuor has said he will introduce a bill to send all Supreme Court Judges home immediately Parliament reconvenes.

He said the Judges failed to honour the trust that Kenyans bestowed on them in their last week's judgment on the presidential petition.

"My first bill in parliament will seek to send the judges home because they disappointed Kenyans. I know as Cord we are fewer than our opponents in the house but we will fight hard to ensure the bill goes through," he said.

Mr Owuor argued that the discrepancies discovered in the 22 polling stations whose votes were re-tallied should have raised concern to the Judges that there could have been similar discrepancies in other stations countrywide.

"The choice of the Judges to ignore the discrepancies is suspect. What amount of irregularities should be considered enough evidence for an election to be nullified?" he posed.

He also questioned how Supreme Court Judges Jackton Ojwang, Mohammed Ibrahim and Philip Tunoi, all previously from High Court, joined their three colleagues in making a unanimous decision.

"These are competent Judges who always made independent decisions when they served at the High Court. They could not possibly agree on a unanimous decision," he said.

His sentiments were echoed by Ugenya MP David Ochieng who said that Prime Minister Raila Odinga accepted the court ruling not because it was fair but because he had promised to do so.

Mr Ochieng said that Kenyans deserve to know the truth and the calls for peace should not be used to hoodwink the public that everything is alright.

"We want peace and the truth, we don't want forced peace yet this thing has been stolen from us. We know how to keep peace ourselves and we should therefore not be told what to do," he said.

The leaders were speaking at a luncheon on Monday for Siaya County elected leaders organized by the Right Reverend Dr Joseph Wasonga, Bishop of the Anglican Church of Kenya Maseno West Diocese in his home in Gem Constituency.

The legislators however called on the public to accept the court's decision.

"Raila had accepted the verdict so let us do the same. What we now have to protect as our only saviour in the circumstances is our county government," said Mr Ochieng.

Other MPs who attended the luncheon include Opiyo Wandayi (Ugunja) and Gideon Ochanda (Bondo) and Siaya Governor Cornel Rasanga.

MP vows to move bill to sack Supreme Court judges - Politics - nation.co.ke

 

[Dhuks]

You first sir and I will gladly oblige.

Giving an opinion is not trying to tarnish an institution. And please if you cant stand the heat in the kitchen then you can just keep on passing by. Everything to you has to involve Raila this and Raila that. We are used to your kind.

Lets discuss matters in the post that have been raised by George Ayittey and keep me or Raila out of it please.

Whether its written by ayitteh or ayiggeh is not important,you are the one who echoed them here. Before the verdict you were all over the place with your version of justice and masive irregularity bile and you believed you must win. In court its about proving that evidence not wishing the name massive wik sway the judgement. Wait for detailed judgement wakati wa propaganda umeisha.

 

[Dr. Job]

Whether its written by ayitteh or ayiggeh is not important,you are the one who echoed them here. Before the verdict you were all over the place with your version of justice and masive irregularity bile and you believed you must win. In court its about proving that evidence not wishing the name massive wik sway the judgement. Wait for detailed judgement wakati wa propaganda umeisha.

Everybody knows the truth, and that is your tribal chieftain did not win the elections in a fair fight. I have no need to wait for a judgement that was dictated to the judges under intimidation.