Kenya Election 2013 Petition...Uhuru and Ruto's victory upheld.

Lazy minds indeed; you concede defeat when you loose fair and square; you dont do that to apease minds of lazy clerics! for a man of Raila's stature and track record; that is not what he fought for and spent 9 good years at Kamiti maximum prion for a Kenyan second republic!!!!

The lazy clerics and their ilk know the words "will loose respect" BUT they miss their meaning; wakale mwani waachane na siasa; hawaziwezi wala hawazielewi.

[h=5][/h]


The electoral commission has denied claims by Prime Minister Raila Odinga that it rigged the top seat poll in favour of Mr Uhuru Kenyatta.

In its response to Mr Odinga’s petition challenging the results at the Supreme Court, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) maintains that the election was free and fair, and that it did not commit any electoral offence to warrant cancellation of the outcome.

“The electoral process was valid and a valid declaration of the presidential outcome made. By no stretch of imagination was it fundamentally and irreparably flawed nor was it unconstitutionally conducted in breach of elections laws,” reads the response.

IEBC argues that Mr Odinga has not advanced any legal basis to warrant setting aside of the results or the subsequent declaration of Mr Kenyatta and Mr William Ruto as president-elect and deputy president-elect, respectively.

It avers that the results of Mr Odinga’s petition will be a nullification of the whole electoral process, which the commission claims does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

It submits that it put in place a proper framework to ensure free, fair and credible elections as confirmed by the reports of various local and international observers.

“Whereas the events of 2007 provide a necessary backdrop in interrogating the conduct of 2013 elections, the factual and legal matrix of 2013 is by no stretch of imagination comparable to 2007 elections. The only common denominator is the petitioner who has disputed both results,” it says.

In response to Mr Odinga’s contention over the failure of electronic results transmission system, the poll agency says it did not abandon the process and denies allegations that the system was ‘poorly selected, implemented and designed to fail.’

It holds that it did not breach Kenyans’ right to legitimate expectation since the integrity of the electoral process was neither violated, compromised nor rendered ineffective.

“With the challenges faced with the electronic systems, we tried to maintain amanual system which was not opposed by the parties. The commission held a consultative meeting with party agents at Bomas and all agreed on the modes of verification,” it says.

In any event, it maintains that the law gives it the authority to use manual systemas the primary basis of transmitting results, and that the use of electronic systemwas only to promote transparency but not a legal requirement.

On the PM’s claim that the commission inflated the final voter register, IEBC says it only allowed 12 voters from Soi constituency who were mistakenly registered using training electronic register and an additional 31,318 voters whose biometric details were not captured during the voter registration.

The response was drawn and filed by lawyer Paul Nyamodi on behalf of a team of seven other lawyers. The Supreme Court is expected to sit on Monday for a pre-trial conference.

- Daily Nation

That kind of a response was expected, am however puzzled where the IEBC tries to put it that by RAO challenging the 2007 election results should have not done so for 2013 elections........ni kusema huyu mlalamikaji tu!!!

NAIROBI; KENYA: Electoral officials have provided a blow-by-blow account of the March 4 presidential election in response to petitions claiming massive fraud.

This follows a separate filing to the Supreme Court earlier this week by the chairman of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission in his capacity as Returning Officer in the presidential election.

They dismiss allegations of irregularities and say IEBC declared Jubilee alliance candidate Uhuru Kenyatta as President-elect "properly and constitutionally". IEBC says the petition filed on behalf of CORD's candidate, Raila Odinga, challenging the outcome of the elections is riddled with "misrepresentations" and "misconceptions" about the voters' register, the tallying process and the legal framework guiding the election.

The 26-page response urges the Supreme Court to reject all petitions challenging the outcome arguing:
• CORD's challenge over the accuracy of the final voter register is based on incorrect provisional figures;
• Some of the alleged discrepancies are merely related to special sections that all parties were aware of;
• The electronic voter identification and results transmission were meant for transparency only, not to substitute manual process required by law;
• The unexpected and unplanned failure of the two electronic systems had no bearing on the final outcome;
• Details on Forms 36 (constituency totals) used in the manual tally were not manipulated and contain no grave errors as alleged;
• None of the 291 constituencies reported had vote totals greater than the number of registered voters.
The electoral body's legal team, however, conceded the poll had numerous challenges and said this was due to the tight timelines they were forced to work under.

IEBC informed the court it had been in existence for just 18 months, during which time it "completed activities that require an election cycle of five years". The team also pointed out that the March 4 election was Kenya's largest and most complex ever, with an 86 per cent turnout that presented logistical issues.

"The election required the hiring, training, deployment and supervision of over 300,000 temporary personnel in addition to IEBC staff, and acquisition of unparalleled quantities of equipment," their response reads.

The challenges encountered, electoral officials say, were resolved with pragmatic solutions in accordance with the law. Political party officials, they add, agreed to many of the solutions, including the manual tallying after the provisional results system ran into trouble.

As a result, they say, there are no grounds for setting aside the outcome of the election. They further contend the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction for such a drastic course of action.

Through campaign manager Eliud Owalo, Raila has sought declarations that, when broadly interpreted, would lead to invalidation of the entireGeneral Election. He claims he won the elections but the victory was stolen from him. He wants voter registration declared flawed, the presidential elections invalidated and IEBC held to have committed electoral offences.

"There is no lawful basis whatsoever advanced by the petitioner that would warrant either the setting aside the results as announced or (rejecting) the electoral process as a whole," IEBC responds through lawyers Mohamed Nyaoga and Paul Nyamodi.

The commission also dismisses Raila's references to the disputed 2007 election in his petition, saying the facts and legal framework are different.

"The only common denominator is the petitioner, who has disputed both results," IEBC says. Initial reports by various observers, it adds, gave this year's polls a clean bill of health.

CORD's allegations
IEBC denies CORD's allegations that it "abandoned" the voter identification process or that the system was "poorly selected, implemented and designed to fail". Details on the failure of electronic systems, IEBC says, are provided in an affidavit prepared by Mr Dismas Ong'ondi, its Director of Information Technology. These systems, it adds, were only employed to improve the efficiency and transparency of the electoral process.

The commission maintains it certified 14,352,545 validly registered voters on February 18. This followed countrywide registration from November 17 to December 18 last year.

IEBC says an additional Special Register had 31,318 people who were validly registered but did not have their biometric details captured due to age, disability or the nature of their work. Political parties were informed about this group in a section called Register Without Biometrics, which was gazetted alongside the main one on February 18.

The figure of 14,267,572 voters quoted in the petition, it says, was a provisional figure from an early register given to political parties to help them conduct their nominations. The final register opened to the public for inspection and verification between January 14 and 27 this year included adjustments that add up to the final figure. Two other sections on the register - exceptions and duplications - were not used during the poll.

On tallying, IEBC says it had a two-step audit involving ten regional teams and a verification team to countercheck their findings. Returning Officers from all 291 constituencies (including the Diaspora) were required to personally and physically deliver results at the National Tallying Centre. Signed Forms 36 were given to party agents in the boardroom at Bomas who were allowed 20 minutes to countercheck them with their tallies.

The commission denies any irregularities or malpractices in the tallying process.

Source:standardmedia.co.ke

KWA UFUPI
Raila Amollo Odinga amekuwa akipigania haki za wanyonge Kenya kwa muda mrefu. Amepigania demokrasia na ametaabika kwa kujiweka mbele katika harakati za kukomboa Kenya kwa mara ya pili. Miaka ya 80 alifungwa miaka tisa na utawala wa kiimla wa Rais Daniel arap Moi.


Raila Amollo Odinga amekuwa akipigania haki za wanyonge Kenya kwa muda mrefu. Amepigania demokrasia na ametaabika kwa kujiweka mbele katika harakati za kukomboa Kenya kwa mara ya pili. Miaka ya 80 alifungwa miaka tisa na utawala wa kiimla wa Rais Daniel arap Moi.

Wakenya wengi kwa hivyo wamekuwa wakitarajia kwamba siku moja angewaongoza na kuwapeleka katika nchi ya Kanaani wafurahie maziwa na asali. Hayo hayajatokea kwa sababu ya anachoeleza kuwa kura kuibwa au kuwa na dosari chungu nzima.

Mara ya kwanza ilikuwa kwenye uchaguzi mkuu wa 2007 ambapo ingawa Odinga alidai ameshinda, ushindi wake uliibwa na Rais Mwai Kibaki akaapishwa usiku. Ghasia na mapigano yalifuata na wengi waliuawa.

Wakati huo, Odinga alishauriwa na vibaraka wa Kibaki aende kortini ikiwa ana ushahidi kwamba kura ziliibwa. Odinga hakufanya hivyo kwa kuwa hakuwa anaamini ka mahakama za Kenya. Baadaye, alikubali kuwa Waziri Mkuu katika serikali ya Kibaki.

Uchaguzi Mkuu wa mwaka huu umepita na Odinga hakushinda, lakini tofauti na awali, mara hii ana imani na mahakama, ameamua kuwasilisha maombi ya kutaka Mahakama ya Juu zaidi ibatilishe uamuzi wa Tume Huru ya Uchaguzi na Mipaka (IEBC) wa kumtangaza Uhuru Kenyatta kama mshindi urais.

Odinga, aliyekuwa akigombea urais kwa tiketi ya Muungano wa Coalition For Reform and Democracy (CORD) anadai kwamba Uhuru alitangazwa mshindi baada ya kuongezewa kura na IEBC, jambo alilosema ni kinyume na sheria.

Ombi lake kwa mahakama inasema kwamba uchaguzi mkuu uliofanywa Machi 4 haukuwa wa haki na huru na kwa hivyo hakuna Serikali inayoweza kuuundwa kwa msingi wa uchaguzi mkuu uliosheheni udanganyifu.

Anasema Uhuru Kenyatta na William Ruto kamwe hawawezi kuwa wamechaguliwa na Wakenya wengi kama iliyotangazwa na IEBC wiki moja unusu iliyopita.



Pia anadai kuwa orodha ya wapiga kura waliosajiliwa ilibadilishwa zaidi ya mara moja kwa lengo la kutatiza ili isijulikane ni orodha ipi ilitumiwa katika upigaji kura.



Kwenye gazeti rasmi la Serikali baada ya zoezi la usajili Desemba 18, 2012 kulikuwa na wapiga kura 14,267,572 lakini wakati wa kutangaza matokeo ya uchaguzi mkuu IEBC ilisema wapigaji kura waliosajiliwa ni 14, 352,533. Anahoji kwa nini IEBC iliongeza idadi ya wapiga kura kwa kuwasajili watu wengine 85,000 jambo linalokinzana na kanuni za uchaguzi na sheria za IEBC.


Ya tatu ni kwamba, mashine za kupigia kura maarufu kama Boimetric Voter Registration (BVR) na mashine zingine maalumu za kielektroniki zilizokuwa zimepangwa zitumike kuhesabu na kutuma matokeo ya kura kutoka maeneo yote ya nchi yalikosa kufanya kazi siku ya kupiga kura.



Ilikuwa vigumu kwa IEBC kuwaelezea Wakenya sababu za mashine zilizokuwa zimejaribiwa na zikafanya kazi kuharibika ghafla. Isitoshe, pesa za umma zipatazo bilioni 9 zilitumiwa kuzinunua.

Baada ya mashine kuharibika, ililazimu IEBC kuhesabu kura kwa mkono jambo lililosababisha hesabu mbaya na kubadilishwa kwa matokeo mengine kumfaidisha Uhuru na Ruto.



Sababu ya nne ambayo Cord imeenda kortini ni kwamba, wanataka kujua kwa nini Fomu namba 36 iliyotangazwa na IEBC ilikuwa na dosari nyingi za matokeo.

Tofauti hizo katika fomu 36 hazingeweza kufanyika ila tu kwa njia ya kujaribu kudanganya na hali ya watu fulani kuongeza karatasi bandia za kupiga kura, watu kupiga kura zaidi ya mara moja, kubadilisha mipaka ya kupiga kura kuongeza wapigaji kura wakati wa kuhesabu kura katika matokeo ya kitaifa.

Ombi jingine la Odinga linasema kwamba kulikuwa na dosari katika zoezi la kupiga kura katika maeneo kadhaa kama vile Mlima Elgon na Bomet Mashariki, Langata na Aldai miongoni mwa mengine.

Linasema matokeo ya urais katika Fomu 36 yaliyotangazwa na IEBC yalikuwa tofauti kabisa na yale yaliyohesabiwa na kukubaliwa awali haswa kuhusiana na matokeo yaliyotumwa kutoka eneo la Webuye Mashariki na Magharibi, Igembe na maeneo mengine mengi. Cord pia inataka kujua kwa nini wapiga kura waliosajiliwa katika vituo vya kupigia kura waliongezeka katika Fomu 34 kinyume na idadi ya wapiga kura walioorodheshwa katika Fomu 36. Dosari hiyo iligunduliwa katika maeneo 10 nchini.
Isitoshe anasema, Fomu 36 zaidi ya mbili zilionyesha matokeo tofauti katika maeneo Bunge ya Kikuyu, Juja, Chuka na Thika.

Linasema mabadiliko yalifanyiwa Fomu 36 bila sababu katika maeneo bunge ya Kiambaa na Limuru. Yote haya ni maeneo ambayo Uhuru ana wafuasi wengi.

Pia kura zaidi ambazo hazikuharibika zilizopigwa katika maeneo mengine ya uwakilishi bungeni yalionyeshwa katika Fomu 36 kuliko Fomu 34.

Odinga anateta kwamba Fomu mbili za 36 za eneo moja ziliwasilishwa katika makao makuu ya kuhesabu kura za kitaifa. Alitoa mfano wa eneo la Mathira ambalo ilikuwa na Fomu 36 mbili ilhali ni kituo kimoja.

Mbali na hayo, kuna maswali mengi yasiyo na majibu kuhusiana na kwa nini IEBC na chama cha The National Alliance (TNA) cha Uhuru zikatumia huduma za kampuni ya utoaji huduma za kimtandao ya Kencall. Je, hii ilkuwa bahati mbaya au mpango wa kuhujumu matokeo ya kura?

Odinga anasema kwa kutumia huduma za Kencall pamoja inaonyesha kwamba Uhuru alikuwa an uwezo wa kufikia habari zozote za muhimu za IEBC kuhusiana na zoezi hili muhimu la upigaji kura.

Anaamini kwamba IEBC na mweyekiti wake, Isaack Hassan walikosa kuunda mifumo isiyo na dosari au tashwishi na iliyo salama, wazi na huru.

Zaidi ya hayo anasema kwamba, wawakilishi wote wa Cord walikosa kuhusishwa kwa njia moja au nyingine katika masuala yote ya utangazaji wa matokeo na hesabu zake.

Anasema kinyume na matangazo ya IEBC, Uhuru hakupata zaidi ya nusu za kura zote zilizopigwa na kwa hivyo anataka cheti cha ushindi wa urais kilichopewa Uhuru Machi 7 kifutiliwe mbali na korti.



Ikiwa mahakama itakubali hoja hizo, inaweza kutengua matokeo na uchaguzi mkuu mwingine kufanyika ndani ya siku 60 baada ya uamuzi wa mahakama. Hii ni kulingana na vipengee vya Katiba ya nchi. Ikiwa mahakama itaamua kwamba kuwe na uchaguzi mwingine,

wagombea wote wanane wa urais watatarajiwa kuwa mbioni kutafuta kura tena na mtu mwingine yeyote anayetaka kugombea urais. Uchaguzi kama huu utakuwa tofauti na ule ambao Odinga na Uhuru pekee wanashindana katika awamu ya pili.Odinga anadai nini kortini? - Makala - mwananchi.co.tz

Anadai haki yake ya kikatiba.

huyu sasa angeuka chizi . alijitakia mwenyewe kushindwa pale alikubali selikali ya mseto. angejifunza madhara yake kutoka kwa sefu hamadi wa CUF.

Katumia haki kikatiba kwenda kwa court hiyo ni busara tosha lakini cha pili chaguzi nyingi za africa zimejawa na mizegwe kila leo na kuogezeka kwa kasi kwa ubakaji wa kidemokrasia.

Tango73 said:

huyu sasa angeuka chizi . alijitakia mwenyewe kushindwa pale alikubali selikali ya mseto. angejifunza madhara yake kutoka kwa sefu hamadi wa CUF.

Click to expand...

Hapa mzee kuna elimu fulani ya muhimu. Unavyoona wewe ni kwa nini mseto unawadhoofisha wapinzani? Makosa gani labda wanayoyafanya ambayoipengine wangeya avoid wangeweza kutumia hiyo fulsa ya kuwa katika serikali kwa kujiimarisha zaidi?

[TABLE="width: 0"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]More than 10 million Kenyans turned up to vote in the March 4 General Election.
[PHOTO: FILE/STANDARD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
By Wahome Thuku
NAIROBI; KENYA: Electoral officials have provided a blow-by-blow account of the March 4 presidential election in response to petitions claiming massive fraud.

This follows a separate filing to the Supreme Court earlier this week by the chairman of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission in his capacity as Returning Officer in the presidential election.

They dismiss allegations of irregularities and say IEBC declared Jubilee alliance candidate Uhuru Kenyatta as President-elect "properly and constitutionally". IEBC says the petition filed on behalf of CORD's candidate, Raila Odinga, challenging the outcome of the elections is riddled with "misrepresentations" and "misconceptions" about the voters' register, the tallying process and the legal framework guiding the election.

The 26-page response urges the Supreme Court to reject all petitions challenging the outcome arguing:
• CORD's challenge over the accuracy of the final voter register is based on incorrect provisional figures;
• Some of the alleged discrepancies are merely related to special sections that all parties were aware of;
• The electronic voter identification and results transmission were meant for transparency only, not to substitute manual process required by law;
• The unexpected and unplanned failure of the two electronic systems had no bearing on the final outcome;

• Details on Forms 36 (constituency totals) used in the manual tally were not manipulated and contain no grave errors as alleged;
• None of the 291 constituencies reported had vote totals greater than the number of registered voters.

The electoral body's legal team, however, conceded the poll had numerous challenges and said this was due to the tight timelines they were forced to work under.

IEBC informed the court it had been in existence for just 18 months, during which time it "completed activities that require an election cycle of five years". The team also pointed out that the March 4 election was Kenya's largest and most complex ever, with an 86 per cent turnout that presented logistical issues.

Standard Digital News - Kenya : IEBC: Why Raila poll petition is flawed

The IEBC concedes there were challenges, he should indicate those challenges because they could be the source for rigging.

Shortly after the amendment of the contentious section 2A of the Kenya constitution to introduce multi-party democracy, Kenyans went to polls in 1992.

Retired President Moi's party, Kanu and the then opposition leader Kenneth Matiba's Ford Asili were the front runners in the 1992 general election.

At the end of the vote, the Electoral Commission of Kenya declared Moi the winner and Matiba the runner up. Matiba then moved to court to contest the results. He alleged massive rigging by Kanu and sought the court's help in reversing the results. But even before the court's ruling, Moi was swiftly sworn in and assumed the reigns of office. Matiba's prayer for reversal of the results was turned down by the court and his petition dismissed. Justice Riaga Omollo dimissed Matiba's petition on grounds that he had not signed it in person. That notwithstanding, many Kenyans believed that Matiba had indeed beaten Moi in the 1992 polls. This feeling still lingers on to date.

Then came the 1997 general election. Moi was still in the race. His closest challenger, Democratic Party leader Mwai Kibaki, lost to Moi amidst claims of rigging. Like Matiba, Kibaki petitioned the court to declare the election a fraud and call for a repeat of the polls. Moi was again sworn in before the court's verdict. Kibaki's petition was again dismissed by the court.

The fate suffered by Matiba and Kibaki in court did not strike many Kenyans as strange. The levels of compromise in the judiciary were so high that no one expected it to rule in favour of the opposition. With many of the judges and even lower judicial officers being handpicked by Moi and his cronies it was almost guaranteed that when it came to matters to do with the presidency, Moi would always have the last laugh. The Judiciary was regarded as an extension of the executive. Judicial officers could only rule against Moi and his cronies to their own detriment. The phrase, "Why hire a lawyer when you can buy a judge" became the defining mark of the Kenyan Judiciary. Judicial officers saw no fault in being errand boys and girls of the powers that be. Justice was only available to the highest bidder.

Many political analysts opined that it was naïve for Matiba and Kibaki to expect justice from such a compromised judiciary. Indeed even ordinary Kenyans had no serious expectation that these petitions would succeed. Life went on as if there were indeed no petitions before the High Court, and when the decision in favour of the president was rendered, not much notice was taken of this, outside of legal and hard-core political circles.

Kenyans went to the polls again in 2002, and a great majority of voters rallied behind the then opposition leader Mwai Kibaki and the National Rainbow Coalition. With support from almost every corner of the country, Kibaki handed Moi and his chosen successor Uhuru Kenyatta the defeat of their lifetime. So huge was the margin of Kibaki's victory that Uhuru Kenyatta swiftly conceded defeat. This time round no one moved to court to contest the overwhelming victory.

The claims of rigging returned to haunt Kenyans again following the contested 2007 general election. The Samuel Kivuitu-led Electoral Commission of Kenya declared President Kibaki the winner in a race pitting him against Orange Democratic Movement's Raila Odinga. The announcement of Kibaki as the winner rubbed millions of Kenyans the wrong way. No sooner had the results been announced than the country erupted in violence with Raila's supporters alleging that his victory had been stolen. The scale of violence spiraled out of control, and the international community had to intervene to restore peace to the country. More than 1,000 lives were lost and 600,000 people were displaced.

When members of Kibaki's inner circle challenged Raila and his party to contest Kibaki's 'victory' in court, Raila flatly refused. He argued that it was an exercise in futility to go to courts stuffed with Kibaki's cronies. Raila's sentiments echoed the belief of many Kenyans that expecting justice from the judiciary was akin to expecting water from a rock. Normalcy was only restored when the international community through former UN secretary general Kofi Annan and his panel of Eminent Africans brokered a truce between Raila and Kibaki. The truce saw Kibaki retain the presidency with Raila becoming the country's Prime Minister.

Much water has gone under the bridge since the disputed 2007 general election. On March 4, 2013, Kenyans took part in a general election under the new constitution promulgated in 2010. The March 4 election was peculiar in the sense that unlike in previous elections when Kenyans elected only three public officials, this time round they were electing a record six public officials. It is also the election that has seen the inauguration of a bicameral Parliament consisting of the National Assembly and the Senate.

The two key contenders in this election were the Coalition for Reforms and Democracy candidate Raila Odinga and Jubilee coalition's candidate Uhuru Kenyatta. After waiting for five days, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission declared Uhuru Kenyatta as the President-elect.

Pursuant to this declaration, Raila has lodged a petition in the Supreme Court under Article 140 of the constitution to dispute Uhuru's victory. In his petition, Raila is contending that despite being funded by taxpayers to the tune of billions of shillings, the IEBC equipment totally failed to transmit the results electronically to the national tallying centre at the Bomas of Kenya forcing the electoral body to resort to manual tallying. He is also alleging that in some areas, the number of registered voters was much lower than the number of votes announced by the IEBC. Raila has even gone ahead and alleged at a public rally, that he won the election by 5.7 million votes but it was rigged in favour of Uhuru.

It is of course with just such scenarios in mind, that the Supreme Court was created in the first place, under the new constitution. There was a clear understanding among the committee of experts who met to harmonise and polish up the draft constitution, that Kenya needed one final level of the judiciary, which the nation could turn to in times of such an impasse. And that it was necessary that the Supreme Court should consist of judges who had undergone a public vetting, so that it would be impossible to argue that it was partisan in any decisions it made.

Both Raila and Uhuru have publicly stated that they will abide by the decision made by the Supreme Court whichever way it goes.
All the same, the petition before the Supreme Court has raised levels of tension in the country. There's a lot of uncertainty as to which verdict will be ultimately arrived at by the highest court in the land. While Uhuru's supporters are optimistic that the court will throw out the petition and confirm their man as the country's fourth president, Raila's followers are hoping that the court will declare the election fraudulent and order a repeat. Whichever way the court rules, there will be significant ramifications that Kenyans will have to contend with.

If the court rules that the election was free, fair and transparent, Uhuru Kenyatta will be sworn in as Kenya's fourth president. This will be a slap in the face of Raila's supporters since the decision of the Supreme Court is final and cannot be overruled. Raila will then have to wait for another five years before trying his luck again. Under Article 140(2) the Supreme Court has 14 days within which to make a ruling on Raila's petition.

Conversely, if the Supreme Court finds the whole electoral process wanting, on the strength of the evidence adduced by Cord, it will most likely nullify the results. Article 140(3) stipulates that, "If the Supreme Court determines the election of the president elect to be invalid, a fresh election shall be held within sixty days after the determination". This Article contemplates a situation where all the eight presidential candidates may have a chance to take part in a fresh general election. Nothing, however, stops the Supreme Court from ordering a repeat of elections between the two main contenders, Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga. In all likelihood, this will be the case in the event of the court declaring the polls a fraud given that nearly all the other six candidates have conceded defeat and may not be interested in having their names on the ballot again. Furthermore an election involving two candidates will be somewhat easier to manage bearing in mind the logistical complications involved in an election with eight aspirants.

What is unfolding in Kenya is not different from the situation currently obtaining in Ghana. In December 2012 Ghanaians voted in a general election. Incumbent President John Mahama was declared the winner with 50.7 per cent of votes enough to avoid a run-off against opposition leader Nana Akufo-Addo who garnered 47.7 per cent. Akufo-Addo has since filed a petition in the country's Supreme Court with evidence that the electoral body manipulated the voting system to hand Mahama victory.

In the meantime what is worthy of note is that unlike in 2007 when he said no to going to court, Prime Minister Raila Odinga has, this time round, had no qualms in contesting Uhuru's victory in the Supreme Court. One may as well ask what has happened between 2007 and now that has brought about a change in the attitude of the PM and Kenyans at large towards the Judiciary.
The answer lies in reforms. Following the passing of the 2010 constitution, radical reforms have taken place in the Judiciary. New judges have been appointed and those that were serving on the bench before the promulgation of the constitution have been vetted. Those whose integrity was in question have been declared unfit to continue serving. Terms and conditions of judicial officers have also been improved making is difficult for them to be compromised.

Under the stewardship of Chief Justice Dr Willy Mutunga so much confidence has been restored in the Judiciary. As if to demonstrate the independence of the Judiciary, Kenyans have watched with admiration and a sense of immense national pride as judges reverse some decisions made by the executive and even the President. This is something that could not be thought of just five years ago when judges served at the mercy of the executive.

It is courtesy of this reformed Judiciary that Raila believes that he will get justice. The good news is that he has promised to accept the verdict of the the Supreme Court. It may, however, be argued that his promise is superfluous since he will have no option but to abide by the decision of the highest court in the land.

http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/article-113503/strange-history-kenyan-presidential-petitions

MABAGHEE said:

The IEBC concedes there were challenges, he should indicate those challenges because they could be the source for rigging.

Click to expand...

Mkuu ni zaidi ya challenges...ni udhaifu na wamekiri kwa kauli hii:

Some of the alleged discrepancies are merely related to special sections that all parties were aware of;

Click to expand...

The commission also dismisses Raila's references to the disputed 2007 election in his petition, saying the facts and legal framework are different.

"The only common denominator is the petitioner, who has disputed both results," IEBC says. Initial reports by various observers, it adds, gave this year's polls a clean bill of health.

Click to expand...

huu wajamani ni msumari wa moto. raila asubiri kulia mchana kweupe na naamini kabisa we are seeing and are a witness to the end of the most virulent and conman politician of our post-independent East-Africa

Mkuu ni zaidi ya challenges...ni udhaifu na wamekiri kwa kauli hii:

Click to expand...

Some of the alleged discrepancies are merely related to special sections that all parties were aware of;

Click to expand...

not sufficient to upend the will of Kenyan voters well voiced on 4th March 2013!

The IEBC concedes there were challenges, he should indicate those challenges because they could be the source for rigging.

Click to expand...

Not knowing the law has never been an excuse. It is up to Raila to prove his flagging case and not leaning on the IEBC to do him favour on this one! The case will be thrown out with costs on Friday. And Uhuru will go on and rule Kenya for at least ten years because the next election will only be a formality.,

''It avers that the results of Mr Odinga's petition will be a nullification of the whole electoral process, which the commission claims does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.''

Is this to say the court has no power to decide this issue.....................?!

Why all the outbursts! CORD have no evidence they fail in court, they have they prove a point. And you know people, justice is justice denied! Cases in for years and eventually justice rendered! CORD have followers, sympathisers and want -to-hear people, they have all the right to tell whats going on. We need to be patient observers, listeners and leaners.

Kila la heri kwa wanaodai haki zao yetu masikio.