KENYA PRESIDENTIAL PETITION UPDATES IN SUMMARY FORM The updates of hearing of presidential election petition in Kenya are as summarised hereunder. First but not foremost, an application in respect of Notice to Produce, filed by Lawyer Kethi Kilonzo on Monday on behalf the Africa Centre for Open Governance (AFRICOG) (the petitioner to presidential election petition) to have the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission be compelled to produce the marked voter registers from all polling stations during hearings of the Presidential election dispute was disallowed by the Supreme Court and as per ruling read out by Mohammed Ibrahim, SCJ. Second, The Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the inclusion of rejected votes in the final tally of the presidential vote the issue raised by the Lawyer, Njoroge Regeru, representing activists Dennis Itumbi and Moses Kuria who filed Petition No. 3 of 2013. Njoroge Regeru, argued that rejected votes should not count on reasons, inter alia, comparative approach, purpose approach and past practice. Njoroge was supported by Fred Ngatia (Kenyattas lawyer) and Katwa, Kigan (Rutos lawyer). However, Mr Odinga's lawyer George Oraro argued that votes are part of total votes cast in an election and must be accounted for in the final tally and he was supported by Attorney General Prof. Githu Mwigai and Karori Kamau who is the lawyer of Chairman of IEBC , Issack Hassan. Third, the judges also outlined five issues that would guide the hearing of the petition challenging IEBC's declaration of Uhuru Kenyatta as President-elect which are enumerated hereunder a) Whether third respondent (Kenyatta) was validly elected president; b)Whether procurement of electronic equipment and services to used in election was in breach of law c) What were the consequences of procurement of electronic equipment and services to the general election. d) Whether the rejected votes should have been included in the final tally of the presidential poll; e) What consequential declarations, orders and reliefs should the court grant. Fourth, Lawyer Kethi Kilonzo submitted on behalf of Africog in a unique style in which her submission was complimented by electronic evidence of recorded video. Her submission focused mainly on two issues, first issue was the discrepancies between votes declared by returning officers at constituencies and at counties levels and results declared National Tallying Centre (at Bomas) citing example of Nakuru County and second issue being unlawful Increase of voters in the Principal Voters Register subsequent to official close of registration of voters. Last but not least, the senior counsel George Oralo submitted in his endevour to convince Supreme Court to declare the March 4th legally invalid. His submission focused mainly on five issues hereiafter mentioned. First, failure by Presiding Officers to transmit presidential result electronically was unlawful. Second, unlawful increase of voters in the Principal Voters Register subsequent to official close of registration of voters. Third, the results declared by IEBC in favour of Kenyatta were far less than the fifty per cent (50%) of the votes cast as required by Article 138 (4)(a) of the Constitution. Fourth, Procurement of technological devices and services by IEBC was so poorly selected, designed and implemented that it was deliberately destined to fail at inception, to the knowledge of the IEBCs officials with the sole purpose giving room to unlawful acts. Fifth, election malpractices or irregularities generally. N.B hearing has been adjourned and it will proceed tomorrow at 9:00 sharp where petitioners will complete their submissions and thereafter the respondents will chip in to defend their case. Humbly I submit.