Kenya Election 2013 Petition...Uhuru and Ruto's victory upheld.
Kenya Election 2013 Petition...Uhuru and Ruto's victory upheld.
- Thread starter Ab-Titchaz
- Start date
Mbogela
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 28, 2008
- 1,384
- 258
Sio Vituo 2 Ni vituo 22. Lakini pia sijajua kama watafanya randomy sampling au watakuwa na baadhi ya maeneo yaliyolalamikiwa na Timu ya Raila ndio yahesabiwe upya? maana inachotakiwa kuwa verified na court of law ni kama kulikuwa na makosa yametendeka, kwa hiyo sidhani kama mahakam itafanya randomlu sampling kupata vituo vya kuhesabiwa upya. Nadhani wataenda kwenye vituo ambavyo tayari vinalalamikiwa kuwa idadi ya waliopiga kura katika majimbo hayo ilizidi idadi ya waliokuwa wamejiandikisha.
Pia kama watapa server ya computer na kama haijachezewa basi Timu ya Raila itakuwa na uwezo wa kuprove kuwa idadi ya kura zilizokuwa zimewasilishwa mwanzoni na kuwa served kwenye computer kabla ya system kufail ni tofauti na zile zilizowakilishwa na returning officers. Sasa ninachojiuliza, Hivi kwani wasimamizi wote si walikuwa na karatasi/nakala zilizosainiw ana mareturning officers?
Pia kwenye taarifa ya habari nimesikia SAFARI Com ikitajwa, Hivi safari com watakuwa wanahusikaje kwenye hii issue??
Dr. Job
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 22, 2013
- 813
- 220
[h=1]Activist disrupts Supreme Court proceedings[/h]
By Standard Digital Reporter
Nairobi, Kenya: Supreme Court proceedings were momentarily disrupted after former presidential candidate and activist Nazlin Omar Rajput attempted to address the judges over an application she had filed.
The activist argued she had filed her petition before court but had not been heard.
Appearing in hijab attire with part of her face partly concealed, Nazlin shot up and disrupted counsels who were arguing their standpoints to the shock of the courts.
It took the intervention of three judges Justices Mohammed Ibrahim, Jackton Boma Ojwang and Dr Smokin Wanjala to order Nazlin to follow procedures and respect the authority of the court.
I am here to represent Wanjiku and my case has been filed properly but this court is not giving me a hearing Nazlin said.
She drew the ire of the judges when she declined to obey orders to sit down even after Justice Ibrahim had said her case was set for Tuesday.
Nazlin persisted that she be heard until justice Ojwang reminded her that the court had rules which needed to be followed.
At some point, court orderlies were by her side but they moved back after she sat down.
Justice Wanjala told off Nazlin warning her of dire consequences for disobeying and disrespecting decisions of the court.
He asked Nazlin to respect the authority of the court saying, the authority of this court has to be respected by Wanjiku and the high and mighty .this court is ready to hear every Kenyan as long as they abide by set rules.
This is a court of law and cannot hear you in defiance of the directives issued, this court cannot be held at ransom .defy this order at your own peril, said Justice Wanjala.
Standard Digital News - Kenya : Kenya : Activist disrupts Supreme Court proceedings
By Standard Digital Reporter
Nairobi, Kenya: Supreme Court proceedings were momentarily disrupted after former presidential candidate and activist Nazlin Omar Rajput attempted to address the judges over an application she had filed.
The activist argued she had filed her petition before court but had not been heard.
Appearing in hijab attire with part of her face partly concealed, Nazlin shot up and disrupted counsels who were arguing their standpoints to the shock of the courts.
It took the intervention of three judges Justices Mohammed Ibrahim, Jackton Boma Ojwang and Dr Smokin Wanjala to order Nazlin to follow procedures and respect the authority of the court.
I am here to represent Wanjiku and my case has been filed properly but this court is not giving me a hearing Nazlin said.
She drew the ire of the judges when she declined to obey orders to sit down even after Justice Ibrahim had said her case was set for Tuesday.
Nazlin persisted that she be heard until justice Ojwang reminded her that the court had rules which needed to be followed.
At some point, court orderlies were by her side but they moved back after she sat down.
Justice Wanjala told off Nazlin warning her of dire consequences for disobeying and disrespecting decisions of the court.
He asked Nazlin to respect the authority of the court saying, the authority of this court has to be respected by Wanjiku and the high and mighty .this court is ready to hear every Kenyan as long as they abide by set rules.
This is a court of law and cannot hear you in defiance of the directives issued, this court cannot be held at ransom .defy this order at your own peril, said Justice Wanjala.
Standard Digital News - Kenya : Kenya : Activist disrupts Supreme Court proceedings
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Job
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 22, 2013
- 813
- 220
From Robert Alai
Following the declaration by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) that Hon. Uhuru Kenyatta had won the 4th March 2013 presidential election by garnering over 50% of the total vote cast, one of the main contenders for the presidency Hon. Raila Odinga filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the results. An election petition of this nature, being a challenge to the position of the presidency, is of immense public interest.
Kenya has rarely witnessed such a high profile case being determined on merit. In 2008, Hon. Mai Kibaki challenged the re-election of President Moi in court. What was billed to be a titanic battle crumbed under the weight of technicalities, with the court dismissing the petition for lack of personal service on the Respondent.
Since then no other petition has been witnessed in our court thus the current petition by Hon. Odinga is inherently historical and of importance to future generations, even if only to give them hope that one can ventilate frustrations against poor electoral management without taking arms.
This article seeks to examine in brief the salient issues raised in the petition as well as the corresponding responses by the Respondents.
The first issue in the petition is that Hon. Kenyatta did not attain the threshold set by the Constitution for one to be declared president-elect. Article 138(3) of the Constitution requires one to obtain at least 50%of the votes cast plus additional one vote for him to be declared president-elect. In the event that no one meets the threshold, the IEBC is required to conduct fresh election in which the winner and the first runner-up are the only candidates.
It is clear that Hon. Kenyatta, according to the IEBC tally, surpassed the 50% mark by only 8,492 votes.
According to the petition, mistakes done during tallying and in making erroneous entries in Form 36 resulted in injustice as the final result do not reflect the wishes of Kenya.
The Petitioner has identified numerous errors in the IEBC documents, numerous instances of conflict between entries in Forms 34 and 36 and cases of over voting in some polling stations. For instance, in a polling station in Lari constituency, Hon. Kenyattas stronghold, there were only 319 registered voters according to the principle register and according to IEBC official figures disclosed after the election.
Surprisingly, Hon. Kenyatta obtained 756 votes from that polling station, more than twice the number of registered voters. According to the Petitioner, similar false entries are replete across the country and especially in strongholds of Hon. Kenyatta. The Petitioner has further identified various forms 34 which show a pattern of more valid votes than registered voters in polling stations falling within Hon. Kenyattas strongholds.
In sum, the Petitioner argues that these errors alone if taken into account reduces Hon. Kenyattas tally to less than 50% hence he shouldnt have been declared president-elect. In response to these claims, Hon. Kenyatta and IEBC have simply denied that there are such errors and have affirmed that the voting and the tallying was done above board.
The Petitioner has further alleged that there was ballot stuffing in Hon. Kenyattas strongholds. This is based on the discrepancy between the valid votes cast for the president and those cast for gubernatorial positions. This allegation is further based on the inconsistencies in forms 34 emanating from Hon. Kenyattas stronghold which in most cases are not signed by agents, and in other cases signed by TNA and NARC agents only representing interesting of the Jubilee coalition.
A number of CORD agents have alleged and deponed in affidavits that they were denied access to forms 34 and 36 or that they were denied access to tallying areas. In response, the Respondents have denied these allegations and further claimed that the Petitioner failed to post agents to various areas to safeguard his interest.
The Petitioner has further alleged that IEBC failed to select proper electronic devices and technology, and that the process of procuring the Electronic Identification Devices (EVID) was so flawed and intended to fail. This is premised on the large scale collapse of the electronic system on the voting day, and is further given credence by a protest memo signed by the Director of ICT at IEBC Dismas Ongondi who expressed fears that the system of voter identification proposed to be adopted had serious shortcomings that could not be rectified in time for the 4th March 2013 elections.
Indeed, Dismas Ongondi has admitted writing the memo expressing those concerns but has not clarified whether those concerns were acted upon. His response is simply that he wrote the memo to show that IEBC is a democratic institution where employees can voice their concerns. IEBC has not attempted to clarify if the concerns raised by both its ICT director and Safaricom CEO Bob Collymore were acted upon.
Another point raised in the petition is in respect to electronic identification of voters and the electronic transmission of results. The Petitioner alleges that the IEBC adopted the use of technology in order to avoid the dispute witnessed in 2007. Indeed, the Kriegler Commission recommended that appropriate technologies for voter identification be put in place to avoid ghost voters and multiple voting. Acting on this recommendation, IEBC deployed Biometric Voter Registration (BVR) system to ensure that voters are listed in a fair and transparent manner. This was successful and IEBC developed the principle register.
The Petitioner learnt, during voting, that there was another register known as voters without biometrics and a further register known as green book which was being used by IEBC. Apart from the principle register, IEBC never disclosed the availability of these other two registers to the public. The Petitioner claims that these two additional registers were not sanctioned by law and were conduits for allowing illegal voters to vote in favour of Hon. Kenyatta.
More light is shed by the fact that most of the voters outside the principle register were in Rift Valley, an area which voted overwhelmingly for Hon. Kenyatta. In response, IEBC has admitted the use of three different registers but justifies it on the basis that there were some voters whose details were not captured in the BVR system and were therefore registered manually. IEBC further claims that the passport size photo and the ID alone were enough to identify a voter and avoid multiple voter, a claim which the Petitioner dismisses as insincere and impractical.
On the electronic transmission of results, the Petitioner alleges that the system was manipulated in favour of Hon. Kenyatta. This is backed by the credible claim that Hon. Kenyattas TNA and IEBC had their data hosted by Kencall on the same IP address. What this meant was that TNA was in a position to receive the data of presidential results factored in by the presiding officers way before it was received at the National Tallying Centre at Bomas of Kenya.
The Petitioner is concerned that nothing would have stopped TNA from manipulating the data at will. This is especially important in light of the fact that the Chief Agent for URP, David Chirchir, was one of the ICT officers who developed the system for transmission of results and was present at the National Tallying Centre. The Jubilee coalition has admitted the data hosting arrangement with Kencall while IEBC has admitted having a contract with Kencall without divulging much on what the terms of the contract are.
The Petitioner has annexed reports of leading IT experts who questioned the sincerity of the claim that the system malfunctioned. The experts have questioned why IEBC has not produced a single log to show when the first and the last electronic results were received, the logs of the various results received through the system and the time the system failed. In a sudden change of tact, IEBC has stated that the electronic transmission of results did not fail. Instead, IEBC claims, there were delays in the system and by the time they were corrected the Returning Officers had arrived at Bomas with the physical results.
The Petitioner further claims that the process of manual tallying at Bomas was done in an opaque manner which did not inspire confidence in the IEBC. The Petitioner has pointed to an incidence during tallying when the electronic transmission of results stopped. The various party agents met the Chairman of IEBC and agreed that each presidential candidate would nominate one agent to sit at the tallying room. This was promptly done and the scrutiny of results started. This process went on for 16 constituencies and massive discrepancies had been detected between the actual figures declared at the polling stations and the figures contained in tallying forms. The Chairman of IEBC then commanded all the agents out of the tallying room and directed to sit at some other location where they would be supplied with the verified results when ready to be announced to the public.
The Petitioner claims that this was not the initial agreement and he therefore did not get a fair chance to scrutinize the results which were being announced to the public. At some point, political party agents signed a statement to be sent to press alleging unfairness and lack of transparency in the tallying process. On behalf of the Jubilee coalition, Davis Chirchir signed the statement expressing his frustrations with the tallying process. In response to these claims, IEBC has admitted sending out agents from the tallying room due to the slow progress made but denied that it was done in bad faith. Jubilee on the other hand has denied that it had issues with tallying and that the process was done above board.
The Petitioner further claims that once the IEBC exercised the option to deployed technology in the election, it had no other discretion to stop using the technology abruptly as it did during the election and transmission of results. IEBC has stated that the use of technology was not necessary in the election and that the right procedure was to conduct the election manually. IEBC claims that even without use of technology, the manual system was credible and transparent. What IEBC has not clarified, however, is why they spent billions of shillings acquiring the BVR and the EVID kits if they were not important. The Petitioner has questioned the wisdom of IEBC in hurriedly spending so much public resources in acquiring a technology only to abandon it when it was needed most. The Petitioner has further identified various instances in which IEBC assured Kenyans that the technology was robust and would make the 2013 stand out from any other election in the history of Kenyans.
Following the declaration by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) that Hon. Uhuru Kenyatta had won the 4th March 2013 presidential election by garnering over 50% of the total vote cast, one of the main contenders for the presidency Hon. Raila Odinga filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the results. An election petition of this nature, being a challenge to the position of the presidency, is of immense public interest.
Kenya has rarely witnessed such a high profile case being determined on merit. In 2008, Hon. Mai Kibaki challenged the re-election of President Moi in court. What was billed to be a titanic battle crumbed under the weight of technicalities, with the court dismissing the petition for lack of personal service on the Respondent.
Since then no other petition has been witnessed in our court thus the current petition by Hon. Odinga is inherently historical and of importance to future generations, even if only to give them hope that one can ventilate frustrations against poor electoral management without taking arms.
This article seeks to examine in brief the salient issues raised in the petition as well as the corresponding responses by the Respondents.
The first issue in the petition is that Hon. Kenyatta did not attain the threshold set by the Constitution for one to be declared president-elect. Article 138(3) of the Constitution requires one to obtain at least 50%of the votes cast plus additional one vote for him to be declared president-elect. In the event that no one meets the threshold, the IEBC is required to conduct fresh election in which the winner and the first runner-up are the only candidates.
It is clear that Hon. Kenyatta, according to the IEBC tally, surpassed the 50% mark by only 8,492 votes.
According to the petition, mistakes done during tallying and in making erroneous entries in Form 36 resulted in injustice as the final result do not reflect the wishes of Kenya.
The Petitioner has identified numerous errors in the IEBC documents, numerous instances of conflict between entries in Forms 34 and 36 and cases of over voting in some polling stations. For instance, in a polling station in Lari constituency, Hon. Kenyattas stronghold, there were only 319 registered voters according to the principle register and according to IEBC official figures disclosed after the election.
Surprisingly, Hon. Kenyatta obtained 756 votes from that polling station, more than twice the number of registered voters. According to the Petitioner, similar false entries are replete across the country and especially in strongholds of Hon. Kenyatta. The Petitioner has further identified various forms 34 which show a pattern of more valid votes than registered voters in polling stations falling within Hon. Kenyattas strongholds.
In sum, the Petitioner argues that these errors alone if taken into account reduces Hon. Kenyattas tally to less than 50% hence he shouldnt have been declared president-elect. In response to these claims, Hon. Kenyatta and IEBC have simply denied that there are such errors and have affirmed that the voting and the tallying was done above board.
The Petitioner has further alleged that there was ballot stuffing in Hon. Kenyattas strongholds. This is based on the discrepancy between the valid votes cast for the president and those cast for gubernatorial positions. This allegation is further based on the inconsistencies in forms 34 emanating from Hon. Kenyattas stronghold which in most cases are not signed by agents, and in other cases signed by TNA and NARC agents only representing interesting of the Jubilee coalition.
A number of CORD agents have alleged and deponed in affidavits that they were denied access to forms 34 and 36 or that they were denied access to tallying areas. In response, the Respondents have denied these allegations and further claimed that the Petitioner failed to post agents to various areas to safeguard his interest.
The Petitioner has further alleged that IEBC failed to select proper electronic devices and technology, and that the process of procuring the Electronic Identification Devices (EVID) was so flawed and intended to fail. This is premised on the large scale collapse of the electronic system on the voting day, and is further given credence by a protest memo signed by the Director of ICT at IEBC Dismas Ongondi who expressed fears that the system of voter identification proposed to be adopted had serious shortcomings that could not be rectified in time for the 4th March 2013 elections.
Indeed, Dismas Ongondi has admitted writing the memo expressing those concerns but has not clarified whether those concerns were acted upon. His response is simply that he wrote the memo to show that IEBC is a democratic institution where employees can voice their concerns. IEBC has not attempted to clarify if the concerns raised by both its ICT director and Safaricom CEO Bob Collymore were acted upon.
Another point raised in the petition is in respect to electronic identification of voters and the electronic transmission of results. The Petitioner alleges that the IEBC adopted the use of technology in order to avoid the dispute witnessed in 2007. Indeed, the Kriegler Commission recommended that appropriate technologies for voter identification be put in place to avoid ghost voters and multiple voting. Acting on this recommendation, IEBC deployed Biometric Voter Registration (BVR) system to ensure that voters are listed in a fair and transparent manner. This was successful and IEBC developed the principle register.
The Petitioner learnt, during voting, that there was another register known as voters without biometrics and a further register known as green book which was being used by IEBC. Apart from the principle register, IEBC never disclosed the availability of these other two registers to the public. The Petitioner claims that these two additional registers were not sanctioned by law and were conduits for allowing illegal voters to vote in favour of Hon. Kenyatta.
More light is shed by the fact that most of the voters outside the principle register were in Rift Valley, an area which voted overwhelmingly for Hon. Kenyatta. In response, IEBC has admitted the use of three different registers but justifies it on the basis that there were some voters whose details were not captured in the BVR system and were therefore registered manually. IEBC further claims that the passport size photo and the ID alone were enough to identify a voter and avoid multiple voter, a claim which the Petitioner dismisses as insincere and impractical.
On the electronic transmission of results, the Petitioner alleges that the system was manipulated in favour of Hon. Kenyatta. This is backed by the credible claim that Hon. Kenyattas TNA and IEBC had their data hosted by Kencall on the same IP address. What this meant was that TNA was in a position to receive the data of presidential results factored in by the presiding officers way before it was received at the National Tallying Centre at Bomas of Kenya.
The Petitioner is concerned that nothing would have stopped TNA from manipulating the data at will. This is especially important in light of the fact that the Chief Agent for URP, David Chirchir, was one of the ICT officers who developed the system for transmission of results and was present at the National Tallying Centre. The Jubilee coalition has admitted the data hosting arrangement with Kencall while IEBC has admitted having a contract with Kencall without divulging much on what the terms of the contract are.
The Petitioner has annexed reports of leading IT experts who questioned the sincerity of the claim that the system malfunctioned. The experts have questioned why IEBC has not produced a single log to show when the first and the last electronic results were received, the logs of the various results received through the system and the time the system failed. In a sudden change of tact, IEBC has stated that the electronic transmission of results did not fail. Instead, IEBC claims, there were delays in the system and by the time they were corrected the Returning Officers had arrived at Bomas with the physical results.
The Petitioner further claims that the process of manual tallying at Bomas was done in an opaque manner which did not inspire confidence in the IEBC. The Petitioner has pointed to an incidence during tallying when the electronic transmission of results stopped. The various party agents met the Chairman of IEBC and agreed that each presidential candidate would nominate one agent to sit at the tallying room. This was promptly done and the scrutiny of results started. This process went on for 16 constituencies and massive discrepancies had been detected between the actual figures declared at the polling stations and the figures contained in tallying forms. The Chairman of IEBC then commanded all the agents out of the tallying room and directed to sit at some other location where they would be supplied with the verified results when ready to be announced to the public.
The Petitioner claims that this was not the initial agreement and he therefore did not get a fair chance to scrutinize the results which were being announced to the public. At some point, political party agents signed a statement to be sent to press alleging unfairness and lack of transparency in the tallying process. On behalf of the Jubilee coalition, Davis Chirchir signed the statement expressing his frustrations with the tallying process. In response to these claims, IEBC has admitted sending out agents from the tallying room due to the slow progress made but denied that it was done in bad faith. Jubilee on the other hand has denied that it had issues with tallying and that the process was done above board.
The Petitioner further claims that once the IEBC exercised the option to deployed technology in the election, it had no other discretion to stop using the technology abruptly as it did during the election and transmission of results. IEBC has stated that the use of technology was not necessary in the election and that the right procedure was to conduct the election manually. IEBC claims that even without use of technology, the manual system was credible and transparent. What IEBC has not clarified, however, is why they spent billions of shillings acquiring the BVR and the EVID kits if they were not important. The Petitioner has questioned the wisdom of IEBC in hurriedly spending so much public resources in acquiring a technology only to abandon it when it was needed most. The Petitioner has further identified various instances in which IEBC assured Kenyans that the technology was robust and would make the 2013 stand out from any other election in the history of Kenyans.
mie nilifikiri utamfananisha na Maalim seif
simplemind
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 10, 2009
- 16,418
- 9,209
Kethi Kilonzo any relation to Mutula Kilonzo?
Lipumba mpiga dili tu, Lowasa sawa anautaka!
Dhuks
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 15, 2012
- 1,629
- 697
Daughter.
Point of clarification though, that AP report (and another one before it in this thread) says that votes are to be recounted in 22 constituencies while the order was about re-tallying not to find out who got what but to find out if those votes exceeded the registered voters.
Note also the distinction between polling stations and constituencies.
Githeri
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 2, 2012
- 811
- 339
Me ni fan wake ila jamaa anautaka hasa urais, sijui kwanini asikubali yaishe. Mbona maisha yapo tu bila kuwa rais.
Tayana-wog
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 26, 2012
- 24,844
- 29,126
Ha haa haaa
mmasai kilema
Member
- Mar 1, 2013
- 63
- 28
Hana tofauti DOKTA SLAA eti mtu ana wabunge 20 katika wabunge zaidi ya 200 harafu akadai eti ameshinda urais na kaonewa
Kigogo
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 14, 2007
- 20,508
- 6,183
Kweli we kilema..kwani obama ana wabunge wangapi na kawaje rais..
Mani H
Senior Member
- Mar 25, 2011
- 180
- 46
Lowasa wa juzi tu , kama maalim seif,
idawa
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 20, 2012
- 25,284
- 38,364
tena inaonekana unakilema cha akili.!!