News

Odinga Lawyers: Invalidate Uhuru Victory

order http://centristnetblog.com/wp-admin/includes/noop.php geneva;”>Kilonzo produced evidence where the Africog alleges that there was discrepancies in the results from form 34 (constituency level) and 36 (National tallying centre).

generic http://cuencahighlife.com/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/class.jetpack-client.php geneva;”>

He singled out 2 counties where the results of Kenyatta were increased while those of his opponents reduced.


In Nyeri County Raila Odinga garnered 6,099 votes yet the results announced at the National tallying centre were 5,099 while the Uhuru Kenyatta vote was subsequently increased by over 1000 votes.


“It’s so sad that the 1,000 people who stood for over 6 hours in queues to elect Raila Odinga and other candidates ending up losing their choice to Kenyatta simply because it was his stronghold,” said Kilonzo.


Loading...

“I leave the matter to decide whether the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission delivered accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable and transparent presidential elections.”


He further said he people of Kenya passed the new Constitution to have credible and verifiable election.


“I want to tell the IEBC that this constitution does not belong to them but to the people of Kenya. Justice is not measured by money but according to the law. Kenyans queued for more than 5 hours in 2010 to pass this Constitution and it ought to be respected by the IEBC,” said the lawyer.


Kilonzo stopped the video footage for the jury to see the origin of the results being read by the Nyeri County Returning Officer where she pointed out that the officer wasn’t reading form 34 but was reading from a Mobile phone and queried whether the president was legitimately elected.


“The IEBC provision to transmit results electronically was meant to prevent what occurred in 2007 where the ECK could say who won election and transmitting results electronically was not a benefit of the IEBC but for the people of Kenya who passed the new constitution,” added Kilonzo.


She pointed out the IEBC had not responded to the 2 affidavits and therefore urged the jury to invalidate the election of Kenyatta as President on ground that the presidential results were manipulated TO FAVOUR THE President-elect.


“The Constitution of Kenya provides for one person one vote and democratic decision of every voter should have been respected by the IEBC while conducting the March 4 presidential elections,” said Kilonzo.


She further urged the court to direct the Director of Public Prosecution Keriako Tobiko to prosecute the people behind the alteration of the results as they acted against the constitutional provision of transparent election.


In its submission, the Coalition for Reforms and Democracy CORD lead counsel George Oraro said that Kenyans are divided in two equal numbers and the process of petition is about upholding the minimum standards in an election.


He further argued the voter turnout equates those who took part in an electoral process as stated by article 86 of the Constitution which lays foundation for credible election.


“Evaluation of the evidence presented in the court the first respondent [Uhuru Kenyatta] did not meet threshold to be declared president,” said Oraro.

He added the Constitution was very clear on the conduct of the IEBC in conducting the March 4 general election.


“The law demands accuracy in verification of method used, evidence produced must be analyzed. Therefore it’s important for them to be addressed since they hold the future of this nation,” Oraro added.


CORD litigated that there was gross manipulation of results during the tallying citing that introduction of Form 36 contributed to this goal.

“A lot of the form 34 was not signed by agents,” said Oraro.


Oraro agreed with the Africog lead counsel Kilonzo on the failure by the IEBC to ensure the electronic transmission of results.


He further said CORD agents were thrown out of Bomas of Kenya National Tallying Centre. He based his arguments on the use of the BVR kit that the IEBC made a decision to use the manual register during the March 4 general election and ‘system was open for manipulation when the BVR kit failed.


The Counsel said the IEBC explanation of the Technology failure was unsatisfactory, adding, IEBC awarded the tender to Face Technology irregularly and therefore the procurement of the BVR kits became a major problem and faced numerous challenges.


The IEBC ICT director had advised the commission against the technology which the counsel argued that the director did not have faith in the BVR.


“BVR Kits were meant to eliminate ghost voters and ghost votes, if electronic voting had taken place, we would not have been here today, however the kit was meant to fail” said George Oraro.


Like Kilonzo, Oraro said that in some areas voter turnout exceeded the number of registered voters and added that the IEBC explanation was unsatisfactory.


Oraro said that over 30,000 voters were not captured by the BVR. The Counsel said the IEBC acted against the law and created a new voter register after February 18.


He further argued the IEBC confused Kenyans whether the process was electronic and adds that claims of using electronic devices were a fraud.

“The law bars the IEBC from creating another register after the 18th of February, however new voters were added to the register after the February 18, why?” queried Oraro.


The counsel alleged that the register had 111,912 additions of voters from Kenyatta’s backyard and saw deduction of 99,000 voters from Odinga’s backyard.


He cited the likes of Moiben constituency in Rift Valley which saw an additional of 5,407 and Pokot 4,998 voters.


The lawyer also questioned the conduct of the electoral commission on offering the public information about the entire process of voting.


“The IEBC should have informed the public not the political parties. The IEBC must involve people in the policy making,” reaffirmed Oraro.


The senior Counsel questioned the decision for the IEBC to register people without biometrics.


“No one today in Kenya Knows the total number of the registered voters.”


The lawyer decried the move by the electoral commission on 23rd February contrary to the existing law.

He further claimed that the failure of the electronic transmission of results was not by an accident but was intended to fail.

“The Safaricom letter to the IEBC states that they were not adequately prepared to electronic transmission,” cited Oraro.

He urged the court to nullify the election if their submission confirms that the elections were marred with malpractices.

CORD accuses the IEBC for failing to be independent at all times. Through its second counsel Ochieng Oduol the Server of the both TNA and IEBC websites Kencall was the same and he had access to the IEBC website.

“Kenyans were not told of this relationship before and after the elections and court can deal with electoral malpractice,” said Oduol.

CORD and Africog are challenging the IEBC declaration of Kenyatta who garnered 6,173,433 (50.07%) to clinch the hotly contested seat that attracted 7 other candidates among them Prime Minister Raila Odinga, Deputy Prime Minister Musalia Mudavadi, Former Justice Minister Martha Karua, Former Education permanent secretary James Ole Kiyiapi, Lawyer Paul Muite, Peter Kenneth and Abduba Dida.

More to follow as the defendants respond to the allegations…

Back to top button
Translate »

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker