|
Post by kamalet on Sept 19, 2017 15:06:07 GMT 3
Kenyans this morning woke up to very serious allegations against two judges of the supreme court. These allegations are contained in a petition to the JSC asking for action to be taken against the said judges on serious allegation of judicial capture by the opposition. Going through the petition, one can easily tell that this includes considerable input from characters in the intelligence service - so if indeed the allegations are true, it would be a serious indictment of our judicial system.
Part of the problem of our country is that every institution seems to leak more than the hole in Eliza's bucket for those old enough to remember the Harry Belafonte song. That the decision rendered on 1st September seemed to have been known the day before is all too clear for Kenyans. For how else would Raila risk the ignominy of being in a court that throws out his petition or Uhuru would be drinking himself quite a bit that morning prior to the decision? Following on the decision, an angry Uhuru denounced the court whilst Raila seemed to know who at IEBC he needed to go for and who not to go for! We have been treated to names of those who committed election offences with calls for their arrest else elections would not happen. The jubilee side has intensified their attacks on the decision strangely being accused of disrespect to the judiciary as an institution. So the petition hitting our breakfast tables this morning must be seen to be in line with the decision to be read tomorrow morning.
So how did we get ourselves here? The only reason we have as the basis for the annulment of the election is the dissenting opinions of the two judges and both suggest the problem lay with transmission of the results as opposed to the count and tally of the votes. The 4 justices have their work cut out to prove to Kenyans how the transmission affected the will of the voter. So I will not speculate, but I am setting aside quite a bit of my time tomorrow to go through the judgement.
But I cannot help bringing in my laymen appreciation of what went on in the petition! When I read all the stuff that started appearing on social media I get concerned that if any of them are true then we have a problem. My concern mainly lies with the actual conduct of the court. First the admission of any evidence by either of the parties contrary to the law showed a weak court completely different from that of Mutunga. The other problem was the decision of the court to investigate the case themselves with the decision to obtain evidence midstream during the hearing that was not even part of the petition or been adduced by the petitioner. In calling for the investigation of the IEBC IT system or even scrutiny of the electoral papers when no such demand had been made by the petitioner seemed to transfer the burden of proving the case to IEBC who were respondents. Even worse was the consideration of the report of the Registrar to the court and any of use of the report as evidence. The court cannot generate evidence and then use. This is not even sanitised by the request to the parties to comment on the report for 15 minutes.
The background of these petitions to the JSC must be seen in this perspective and it will not surprise me that there will be a deluge of petitions against the judges from more unhappy people after the ruling for this will be used as part of the complaints. One can only hope this case will help clean up the judiciary and give Kenyans hope in their institutions!
|
|
|
Post by Mobimba on Sept 19, 2017 23:04:29 GMT 3
Kamale,
Clearly you are greatly perturbed by the court ruling and you, as all, are anxiously waiting to read the decisions. That aside, I’m yet to find a soul in Kenya or otherwise who disputes the FACT that the past election was seriously flawed. Both Jubilee and NASA have accused each other of greatly influencing or colluding with the IEBC - with real or imagined evidence. If only one of them is correct, then the whole episode was a sham. You agree?
I do not doubt that there were shenanigans on both sides (we are Kenyans after all) but given what we know now, haven’t the judges simply given we Kenyans a second chance to redeem ourselves from thuggery? If in the end we actually hold a certified free and fair election, wouldn’t have the end justified the means?
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 20, 2017 6:02:20 GMT 3
On my part, I confess I am perturbed by the Supreme Court's ruling. I am concerned with the challenges that the ruling imposes upon the country, including the creation of scenarios in which future elections cannot be resolved, owing to the precedent of this ruling rather than the facts of the election of then.
There may have been a case for recounting votes in the recent election, but I don't understand how the court leaped from a recount to a repeat, and how it can avoid the same ruling in future challenges, however flimsy the evidence. In my view the court did not display care about the precedent it was setting, and that is unconventional of any court. Perhaps I will be surprised tomorrow. That would be a pleasant outcome.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 20, 2017 9:08:51 GMT 3
Kamale, Clearly you are greatly perturbed by the court ruling and you, as all, are anxiously waiting to read the decisions. That aside, I’m yet to find a soul in Kenya or otherwise who disputes the FACT that the past election was seriously flawed. Both Jubilee and NASA have accused each other of greatly influencing or colluding with the IEBC - with real or imagined evidence. If only one of them is correct, then the whole episode was a sham. You agree? I do not doubt that there were shenanigans on both sides (we are Kenyans after all) but given what we know now, haven’t the judges simply given we Kenyans a second chance to redeem ourselves from thuggery? If in the end we actually hold a certified free and fair election, wouldn’t have the end justified the means? I am perturbed by the reasoning behind the decision as opposed to the decision itself. I am perturbed about the future of the court itself if the decision is confirmed to be wrong especially in the affirmation of the will of the Kenyan people in the repeat election where Uhuru wins as it is largely expected. How can that court redeem itself as was demanded by Raila if it makes a decision that runs counter to the will of the people and the same is reconfirmed in a repeat election? That is my worry!!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 20, 2017 20:01:36 GMT 3
I have painstakingly listened to the details of the verdict, given by a judge who was either exhausted at the time of reading the verdict, or who has reading difficulties. I take away a few points:
- IEBC had issues of technicality to explain, and from the little I listened to, IEBC seemed to explain, albeit incoherently. For example, why could an election be called before all results are collated at the national headquarters? That is trivial, and it happens all over the world. An explanation I am conversant with is, when votes have been counted to a certain threshold and the margin between candidates is known, it may become clear that the remaining uncounted votes would not tip the balance even if they were all allocated to the second tallying candidate. I don't know whether that is what happened here, but I believe it has its place in an election.
- In the US they always stream votes cast along with the voting process. They clarify that such votes are provisional. Muite seemed to explain a similar activity for Kenya, but he did not seem fully conversant with the process. The court seems to argue that IEBC declared the election on the basis of such provisional results. This would be problematic, but I think it is an issue with a redundant check that I mention in my "grand take away" below ... which I think should have been the direction of the ruling.
- The court wonders why manual transmissions could arrive before the electronic. It happens - large documents can jam the system. Again, I don't know if that is what happened in this case.
- Why presidential votes exceeded gubernatorial and parliamentary elections: I did not catch the actual difference because the reader was incoherent on this part, but it did not sound like a huge margin. Fact: voters everywhere care more about the head of state than the smaller positions. It is usual for presidential votes cast to exceed those of senators and others, even in US where the ballot presents catch-all vote casting down the party of preference with one push of a button.
The grand take away, the court seems to question its own judgement. It says, "...at this juncture we must restate that, no evidence has been placed before us to suggest that the process of voter registration, voter identification, manual voting and vote counting were not conducted in accordance with the law." This is strange! Would such evidence not be the only trigger for the ruling that the court made? Why require voters to go back to polling if the court is not questioning the process up through counting? Weren't the tallies counter-signed by representatives of the candidates after the counting? Why then not disregard everything that followed, and go back to those signed summaries?
Looking forward, I wonder how many days Kenyans will be willing to wait after election, to know who won. I know in US it takes weeks, even months, to count all votes. Yet by end of day, the president is usually known. Kenya's supreme court is seeing more technological might in Kenya than the US sees in itself.
|
|
|
Post by kasiaya on Sept 21, 2017 0:01:18 GMT 3
I have painstakingly listened to the details of the verdict, given by a judge who was either exhausted at the time of reading the verdict, or who has reading difficulties. I take away a few points: - IEBC had issues of technicality to explain, and from the little I listened to, IEBC seemed to explain, albeit incoherently. For example, why could an election be called before all results are collated at the national headquarters? That is trivial, and it happens all over the world. An explanation I am conversant with is, when votes have been counted to a certain threshold and the margin between candidates is known, it may become clear that the remaining uncounted votes would not tip the balance even if they were all allocated to the second tallying candidate. I don't know whether that is what happened here, but I believe it has its place in an election. - In the US they always stream votes cast along with the voting process. They clarify that such votes are provisional. Muite seemed to explain a similar activity for Kenya, but he did not seem fully conversant with the process. The court seems to argue that IEBC declared the election on the basis of such provisional results. This would be problematic, but I think it is an issue with a redundant check that I mention in my "grand take away" below ... which I think should have been the direction of the ruling. - The court wonders why manual transmissions could arrive before the electronic. It happens - large documents can jam the system. Again, I don't know if that is what happened in this case. - Why presidential votes exceeded gubernatorial and parliamentary elections: I did not catch the actual difference because the reader was incoherent on this part, but it did not sound like a huge margin. Fact: voters everywhere care more about the head of state than the smaller positions. It is usual for presidential votes cast to exceed those of senators and others, even in US where the ballot presents catch-all vote casting down the party of preference with one push of a button. The grand take away, the court seems to question its own judgement. It says, ". ..at this juncture we must restate that, no evidence has been placed before us to suggest that the process of voter registration, voter identification, manual voting and vote counting were not conducted in accordance with the law." This is strange! Would such evidence not be the only trigger for the ruling that the court made? Why require voters to go back to polling if the court is not questioning the process up through counting? Weren't the tallies counter-signed by representatives of the candidates after the counting? Why then not disregard everything that followed, and go back to those signed summaries? Looking forward, I wonder how many days Kenyans will be willing to wait after election, to know who won. I know in US it takes weeks, even months, to count all votes. Yet by end of day, the president is usually known. Kenya's supreme court is seeing more technological might in Kenya than the US sees in itself. Your assertion would be true if the votes that were counted at the40K-plus polling stations was reflected truly at the national tallying center – from the court arguments it was apparent that vote results that were being displayed at the National Tallying center were manipulated or to put it more bluntly were fake, fictitious and unverified. My understanding of this circus is that the real/actual results was never disclosed to the public - evidensed by their inability to allow access to the servers that had the real images form 34A/B. Instead, the cartel within and outside IEBC whose names i believe you are well versed with utilized the predetermined algorithm to recreate the necessary fake statutory forms that they later adduced court. Up until this very moment nobody has explained to me in clear and simple terms how the linear regression plot of the poll results data was attained - was it a coincidence? In a nutshell, all the queries you have posited will only be valid if you can make me believe that the poll results that were announced by IBEC are verifiable to be authentic (generated at the poll Station using form 34A or B).
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 21, 2017 0:58:54 GMT 3
... .. Up until this very moment nobody has explained to me in clear and simple terms how the linear regression plot of the poll results data was attained - was it a coincidence? In a nutshell, all the queries you have posited will only be valid if you can make me believe that the poll results that were announced by IBEC are verifiable to be authentic (generated at the poll Station using form 34A or B). Kasiaya, The lineear regression plot of the poll is new to me. Please share, if there is a digital story of it. You challenge me to make you "believe that the poll results that were announced by IEBC are verifiable to be authentic (generated at the poll Station using form 34A or B)." I cannot do that, but I don't understand the basis of that challenge. My counter challenge to you is for you to explain the case for distrusting the forms that opposing parties signed at tally points. In light of the court asserting that no evidence has been been presented to show non-conformance with the law, all the way up to and including counting, wouldn't those forms be the basis of proving that the numbers that were reported were manipulated, if they indeed were? Otherwise for what are party representatives needed to sign the form, if the form cannot be used in a case where the only procedures in question are those which occurred past the signature station?
|
|
|
Post by kasiaya on Sept 21, 2017 2:46:07 GMT 3
Kasiaya,
The lineear regression plot of the poll is new to me. Please share, if there is a digital story of it.
You challenge me to make you "believe that the poll results that were announced by IEBC are verifiable to be authentic (generated at the poll Station using form 34A or B)." I cannot do that, but I don't understand the basis of that challenge.
My counter challenge to you is for you to explain the case for distrusting the forms that opposing parties signed at tally points. In light of the court asserting that no evidence has been been presented to show non-conformance with the law, all the way up to and including counting, wouldn't those forms be the basis of proving that the numbers that were reported were manipulated, if they indeed were? Otherwise for what are party representatives needed to sign the form, if the form cannot be used in a case where the only procedures in question are those which occurred past the signature station?Mank, Here are the snippets of the digital reporting of how the results followed a predicted pattern as they were being released at different times to IEBC public portal. Otiende Amollo – gave a compelling presentation of the same during their 2+ hours of submission (additional video detailing the presentation are archived in YouTube) chetenet.com/2017/08/29/amollo-otiende-supreme-court/www.jambonewspot.com/nasa-lawyer-says-he-has-formula-that-jubilee-team-used-to-rig-elections/The basis for the challenge rests on the fact that a substantial number of form 34A/B had their numbers varied, do not have IEBC logo, lacks security feature and missing stamps etc. . . affecting more than 5 million votes. That is very substantial alteration that could have impacted the overall presidential vote results. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 21, 2017 12:25:11 GMT 3
I have painstakingly listened to the details of the verdict, given by a judge who was either exhausted at the time of reading the verdict, or who has reading difficulties. I take away a few points: - IEBC had issues of technicality to explain, and from the little I listened to, IEBC seemed to explain, albeit incoherently. For example, why could an election be called before all results are collated at the national headquarters? That is trivial, and it happens all over the world. An explanation I am conversant with is, when votes have been counted to a certain threshold and the margin between candidates is known, it may become clear that the remaining uncounted votes would not tip the balance even if they were all allocated to the second tallying candidate. I don't know whether that is what happened here, but I believe it has its place in an election. The problem here is that it is not possible for the announcement to be made before collation of the results. NASA and Jubilee had agents at the National Tallying Centre and when the NRO collated and tallied the results from 290 constituencies the agents at Bomas were there to sign the result. It is on record that NASA agents refused to sign the final result. But what is important is that the NRO announced the result for all the 47 counties as required by law. Now if the results were not in from the constituencies or polling stations, how would the NTO been able to determine the constitutional threshold for counties? I am informed by one of the President's agents that Chebukati refused to declare the result until he had all the 290 constitutency forms. - In the US they always stream votes cast along with the voting process. They clarify that such votes are provisional. Muite seemed to explain a similar activity for Kenya, but he did not seem fully conversant with the process. The court seems to argue that IEBC declared the election on the basis of such provisional results. This would be problematic, but I think it is an issue with a redundant check that I mention in my "grand take away" below ... which I think should have been the direction of the ruling. When NASA in the middle of the night demanded the TV transmission of results, IEBC clarified that the results being streamed were provisional and where there was any difference between the streamed results and actual form 34A forms then the forms would be the final results. But even then we could have verified from the forms either on a sample basis or on the constituencies with allegedly faulty 34Bs. That in my mind is the judicial laziness shown by the majority. - The court wonders why manual transmissions could arrive before the electronic. It happens - large documents can jam the system. Again, I don't know if that is what happened in this case. Unlike the twinkle star where we wonder where it is, this is no reason to create doubt on the electoral process. Even if transmission was slow or fast - did it finally arrive and when it arrived had the form changed? - Why presidential votes exceeded gubernatorial and parliamentary elections: I did not catch the actual difference because the reader was incoherent on this part, but it did not sound like a huge margin. Fact: voters everywhere care more about the head of state than the smaller positions. It is usual for presidential votes cast to exceed those of senators and others, even in US where the ballot presents catch-all vote casting down the party of preference with one push of a button. This is coming up for a second time after 2013. The question is never a clever one for it does not follow if I go into the polling station and vote for president but my vote for say governor is spoilt does not mean the presidential vote is more than that of governor or senator. There are many reasons to attribute to this. The question would be is there any polling station or constituency where the presidential vote exceeded that of registered voters. Secondly can we verify from ballot counterfoils what was used?? The grand take away, the court seems to question its own judgement. It says, ". ..at this juncture we must restate that, no evidence has been placed before us to suggest that the process of voter registration, voter identification, manual voting and vote counting were not conducted in accordance with the law." This is strange! Would such evidence not be the only trigger for the ruling that the court made? Why require voters to go back to polling if the court is not questioning the process up through counting? Weren't the tallies counter-signed by representatives of the candidates after the counting? Why then not disregard everything that followed, and go back to those signed summaries? DCJ Mwilu perhaps had the most startling way of explaining this. If you are given an algebra equation to solve, you may know the answer and write it on the result sheet. But the aim of question is to test your logical thinking so you need to show how you arrived at the result. According to her, this is the process required of an election! Unfortunately for the poor lady, vote counting is a simple addition and the only proof required is how were they counted and entered in form 34A? If the judges confirm the process until this point - then the will of the Kenyan people has been met! But our judges are a different breed! Looking forward, I wonder how many days Kenyans will be willing to wait after election, to know who won. I know in US it takes weeks, even months, to count all votes. Yet by end of day, the president is usually known. Kenya's supreme court is seeing more technological might in Kenya than the US sees in itself. By Wednesday, anyone would have called the election for Kenyatta and the margin did suggest that. But this is Kenya!!! The decision has opened a situation that will come back to haunt us. For it does not matter who wins, the fact that a ballot cast and counted can be invalidated by the failure of an official to fill out a form is criminal!!
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 21, 2017 12:27:35 GMT 3
Kasiaya,
The lineear regression plot of the poll is new to me. Please share, if there is a digital story of it.
You challenge me to make you "believe that the poll results that were announced by IEBC are verifiable to be authentic (generated at the poll Station using form 34A or B)." I cannot do that, but I don't understand the basis of that challenge.
My counter challenge to you is for you to explain the case for distrusting the forms that opposing parties signed at tally points. In light of the court asserting that no evidence has been been presented to show non-conformance with the law, all the way up to and including counting, wouldn't those forms be the basis of proving that the numbers that were reported were manipulated, if they indeed were? Otherwise for what are party representatives needed to sign the form, if the form cannot be used in a case where the only procedures in question are those which occurred past the signature station?Mank, Here are the snippets of the digital reporting of how the results followed a predicted pattern as they were being released at different times to IEBC public portal. Otiende Amollo – gave a compelling presentation of the same during their 2+ hours of submission (additional video detailing the presentation are archived in YouTube) chetenet.com/2017/08/29/amollo-otiende-supreme-court/www.jambonewspot.com/nasa-lawyer-says-he-has-formula-that-jubilee-team-used-to-rig-elections/The basis for the challenge rests on the fact that a substantial number of form 34A/B had their numbers varied, do not have IEBC logo, lacks security feature and missing stamps etc. . . affecting more than 5 million votes. That is very substantial alteration that could have impacted the overall presidential vote results. Hope that helps. You can use algorithms (which incidentally have been debunked) but that will not change the physical count of the ballot papers and tallying them! What would help Kenyans and me in particular is details of where the votes counted did not tally with 34A as the primary document!
|
|
|
Post by abdulmote on Sept 21, 2017 22:22:43 GMT 3
It is certainly very difficult for a lay person to appreciate the concept of constitutional integrity, particularly when one is of a closed mind and does not value the principal of the rule of law.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 21, 2017 22:59:07 GMT 3
I am traveling and typing from an inconvenient gadget, so I will be very brief. Kasiaya, thanks for sharing the regression plot. If that plot is a real representation of the announcements, then that indeed seems too smooth for an actual election practice. But that would put the question on the announcement. At this point no one can reasonably ask another not to be concerned with the announcement. Still the question remains: why a repeat election just because the announcement is questionable, yet there are pre-announcement records to check the announcements? Kamale, thanks for the pointed responses. This ruling and it's implications for the future reminds me of our discussions on the gender empowerment clause of constitution that paused mathematical versus democratic conflicts. I am curious whether we ever got those conflicts resolved.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 21, 2017 23:22:44 GMT 3
By the way there is a scenario in which the plot could be innocent but I highly doubt that's what is at play here. But it sickens me to imagine that the actual results won't be revisited to validate the allegations.
|
|
|
Post by kasiaya on Sept 22, 2017 3:14:31 GMT 3
Mank,
I don’t think you have been following in totality the electioneering mischief and how opaque the process was …. The activities of some government security agencies and government (jubilee) handlers before, during and after the elections makes it very difficult for me to buy to “recount the ballot” as being one of the options. There were reports of ballot being stuffed in returning officers private homes with policemen at hand to make sure that the process proceeds smoothly! – I think this was in Narok/Kisii/Nyamira.
Do you know that the recount of the ballot was requested by Orengo during supreme court hearing and Uhuru’s lawyers objected to it - of course for obvious reasons at the time? If you never watched the exchange here is the transcript (not verbatim) of the exchange drama……
Orengo (Raila’s Lawyer): My lordship we seek to examine the ballot boxes to confirm how widespread these illegalities were.
Paul Muite (IEBC lawyer): My lord CJ we have no objection to the request.
Ngatia (Uhuru’s Lawyer): (jumps to interject) My lord the counsel for second respondent has not sought our views and it is our contention that such a request is objectionable by our client. We request that the court adjourns for 30 minutes to enable us consult with our client. This is a monumental request that may jeopardize my client...
Maraga (Chief Justice): (consults all judges in including, Njoki Ndungu ) Okay we take a break of 30 minutes to allow consultation between counsel and client.
30 minutes later:
Muite (IEBC lawyer): My lord CJ we object to the request by Petitioner to open the ballot boxes. Ngatia (Uhuru’s Lawyer): My lord our position concurs with the 1st respondent. We object to this application by the petitioner. Orengo (Lawyer for petitioner Raila): My Lord in that instance then we wish to withdraw that application and proceed on other lines......
FAST FORWARD A WEEKS AFTER SUPREME COURT VERDICT.
Uhuru Kenyatta, Jubilee leaders and Pundits Weeks after the supreme court’s verdict nullifying and voiding the election and declaration of UK as the winner: OPEN THE BALLOT BOX!!!!! Njoki Ndungu: The SCOK erred by not ordering recount. Jubilee supporters and Lawyers: open the ballot boxes....
Smart Kenyans: are these robots or do they think that what goes around don't come around.... do they take us for fools?!!!!!!!!
In short, to get a credible election then the IEBC must be allowed to make independent decisions with minimum undue pressure from those who think that they are vested in the country more than those that they perceive as their competitors.
|
|
|
Post by kasiaya on Sept 22, 2017 3:22:18 GMT 3
Full Judgement attached - Oops was unable to upload it here - too long for this blog!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 22, 2017 5:18:49 GMT 3
Mank, I don’t think you have been following in totality the electioneering mischief and how opaque the process was …. The activities of some government security agencies and government (jubilee) handlers before, during and after the elections makes it very difficult for me to buy to “recount the ballot” as being one of the options. There were reports of ballot being stuffed in returning officers private homes with policemen at hand to make sure that the process proceeds smoothly! – I think this was in Narok/Kisii/Nyamira. Do you know that the recount of the ballot was requested by Orengo during supreme court hearing and Uhuru’s lawyers objected to it - of course for obvious reasons at the time? If you never watched the exchange here is the transcript (not verbatim) of the exchange drama…… Orengo (Raila’s Lawyer): My lordship we seek to examine the ballot boxes to confirm how widespread these illegalities were. Paul Muite (IEBC lawyer): My lord CJ we have no objection to the request. Ngatia (Uhuru’s Lawyer): (jumps to interject) My lord the counsel for second respondent has not sought our views and it is our contention that such a request is objectionable by our client. We request that the court adjourns for 30 minutes to enable us consult with our client. This is a monumental request that may jeopardize my client... Maraga (Chief Justice): (consults all judges in including, Njoki Ndungu ) Okay we take a break of 30 minutes to allow consultation between counsel and client. 30 minutes later:Muite (IEBC lawyer): My lord CJ we object to the request by Petitioner to open the ballot boxes. Ngatia (Uhuru’s Lawyer): My lord our position concurs with the 1st respondent. We object to this application by the petitioner. Orengo (Lawyer for petitioner Raila): My Lord in that instance then we wish to withdraw that application and proceed on other lines...... FAST FORWARD A WEEKS AFTER SUPREME COURT VERDICT. Uhuru Kenyatta, Jubilee leaders and Pundits Weeks after the supreme court’s verdict nullifying and voiding the election and declaration of UK as the winner: OPEN THE BALLOT BOX!!!!! Njoki Ndungu: The SCOK erred by not ordering recount. Jubilee supporters and Lawyers: open the ballot boxes.... Smart Kenyans: are these robots or do they think that what goes around don't come around.... do they take us for fools?!!!!!!!! In short, to get a credible election then the IEBC must be allowed to make independent decisions with minimum undue pressure from those who think that they are vested in the country more than those that they perceive as their competitors. No, I had not been following at all. I started only after the dispute. That lines up with the fact that I found Jules at the flair of violence in 2007. Now the angle you bring in, needs to be argued out so the ruling can make sense. Without arguing that counting itself was adulterated, the court seems to have an agenda in its standing ruling. But it was the court itself that argued that there had been no presentation of evidence of malpractice at counting..and it said it in a way that a casual ear would hear that such evidence was non existent. Those who are merely interested in a rerun don't realize the harm the court is doing, in calling for a rerun while not making a good case for it. I don't know if it is timidity, or bias, but the court needs to show that it acts out of neither but objectivity.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 22, 2017 5:27:53 GMT 3
I listened to some of the arguments. I was terribly unimpressed by lawyers on each side... Actually even by Kethi Kilonzo on the third side. But Mwite was the worst, and he knew it himself.
I am particularly disappointed with Kethi because I think she should have been pursuing more for the mwananchi than just a repeat election... She should have (and should now) be after exposing the truth.. Not winning by hearsay where more objective tests exist, but on pursuance to expose the malpractice eve after a rerun is already given.
|
|
|
Post by kasiaya on Sept 22, 2017 5:57:52 GMT 3
I listened to some of the arguments. I was terribly unimpressed by lawyers on each side... Actually even by Kethi Kilonzo on the third side. But Mwite was the worst, and he knew it himself. I am particularly disappointed with Kethi because I think she should have been pursuing more for the mwananchi than just a repeat election... She should have (and should now) be after exposing the truth.. Not winning by hearsay where more objective tests exist, but on pursuance to expose the malpractice eve after a rerun is already given. Hmm. . . . . !! Are you sure Kethi Kilonzo made arguments in 2017 presidential election petition?
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 22, 2017 10:22:28 GMT 3
Kasiaya,
The lineear regression plot of the poll is new to me. Please share, if there is a digital story of it.
You challenge me to make you "believe that the poll results that were announced by IEBC are verifiable to be authentic (generated at the poll Station using form 34A or B)." I cannot do that, but I don't understand the basis of that challenge.
My counter challenge to you is for you to explain the case for distrusting the forms that opposing parties signed at tally points. In light of the court asserting that no evidence has been been presented to show non-conformance with the law, all the way up to and including counting, wouldn't those forms be the basis of proving that the numbers that were reported were manipulated, if they indeed were? Otherwise for what are party representatives needed to sign the form, if the form cannot be used in a case where the only procedures in question are those which occurred past the signature station?Mank, Here are the snippets of the digital reporting of how the results followed a predicted pattern as they were being released at different times to IEBC public portal. Otiende Amollo – gave a compelling presentation of the same during their 2+ hours of submission (additional video detailing the presentation are archived in YouTube) chetenet.com/2017/08/29/amollo-otiende-supreme-court/www.jambonewspot.com/nasa-lawyer-says-he-has-formula-that-jubilee-team-used-to-rig-elections/The basis for the challenge rests on the fact that a substantial number of form 34A/B had their numbers varied, do not have IEBC logo, lacks security feature and missing stamps etc. . . affecting more than 5 million votes. That is very substantial alteration that could have impacted the overall presidential vote results. Hope that helps. Here sis a mathematical explanation on how wrong the "linear regression" theory is. I have come to trust the explanation of numbers by Mungai Kihanya!
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 22, 2017 10:31:55 GMT 3
Mank, I don’t think you have been following in totality the electioneering mischief and how opaque the process was …. The activities of some government security agencies and government (jubilee) handlers before, during and after the elections makes it very difficult for me to buy to “recount the ballot” as being one of the options. There were reports of ballot being stuffed in returning officers private homes with policemen at hand to make sure that the process proceeds smoothly! – I think this was in Narok/Kisii/Nyamira. Do you know that the recount of the ballot was requested by Orengo during supreme court hearing and Uhuru’s lawyers objected to it - of course for obvious reasons at the time? If you never watched the exchange here is the transcript (not verbatim) of the exchange drama…… Orengo (Raila’s Lawyer): My lordship we seek to examine the ballot boxes to confirm how widespread these illegalities were. Paul Muite (IEBC lawyer): My lord CJ we have no objection to the request. Ngatia (Uhuru’s Lawyer): (jumps to interject) My lord the counsel for second respondent has not sought our views and it is our contention that such a request is objectionable by our client. We request that the court adjourns for 30 minutes to enable us consult with our client. This is a monumental request that may jeopardize my client... Maraga (Chief Justice): (consults all judges in including, Njoki Ndungu ) Okay we take a break of 30 minutes to allow consultation between counsel and client. 30 minutes later:Muite (IEBC lawyer): My lord CJ we object to the request by Petitioner to open the ballot boxes. Ngatia (Uhuru’s Lawyer): My lord our position concurs with the 1st respondent. We object to this application by the petitioner. Orengo (Lawyer for petitioner Raila): My Lord in that instance then we wish to withdraw that application and proceed on other lines...... FAST FORWARD A WEEKS AFTER SUPREME COURT VERDICT. Uhuru Kenyatta, Jubilee leaders and Pundits Weeks after the supreme court’s verdict nullifying and voiding the election and declaration of UK as the winner: OPEN THE BALLOT BOX!!!!! Njoki Ndungu: The SCOK erred by not ordering recount. Jubilee supporters and Lawyers: open the ballot boxes.... Smart Kenyans: are these robots or do they think that what goes around don't come around.... do they take us for fools?!!!!!!!! In short, to get a credible election then the IEBC must be allowed to make independent decisions with minimum undue pressure from those who think that they are vested in the country more than those that they perceive as their competitors. And what would have been the consequence of agreeing to that? You note that Muite changed his mind after the break and that was informed by a court strategy that the lawyers assumed. Agreeing to the application by Orengo was opening up an avenue where a precedent would be set and applications outside the filing period of the petition which would allow changing and substitution of evidence. What is really strange is that the court actually wanted to entertain that application!! As Njoki says in her dissenting decision, the court could have suo moto decided to have a recount of the entire election (if they had the time to do so for 15 million ballots or randomly verify votes in some of the contentious polling stations in the petition I agree that the IEBC must be allowed to act independently and when they screw up, they solely take responsibility without the pressure they are getting from the NASA people!!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 22, 2017 11:02:58 GMT 3
I listened to some of the arguments. I was terribly unimpressed by lawyers on each side... Actually even by Kethi Kilonzo on the third side. But Mwite was the worst, and he knew it himself. I am particularly disappointed with Kethi because I think she should have been pursuing more for the mwananchi than just a repeat election... She should have (and should now) be after exposing the truth.. Not winning by hearsay where more objective tests exist, but on pursuance to expose the malpractice eve after a rerun is already given. Hmm. . . . . !! Are you sure Kethi Kilonzo made arguments in 2017 presidential election petition? I am not sure if I misspoke or if you misunderstood me. I meant arguments at the ICC. That was the only forum where I had heard her arguments before this, and contrary to what I caught on one media claim, that is where her name rose to the limelight... Not this latest event.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 22, 2017 12:00:21 GMT 3
I thought the argument about the regression plot was that all the votes fell on or too close to the line. The scenario of innocence that I alluded to in that case, is that scale can determine whether votes away from the line are visible on the plot. Listening to the lawyer now, I realize it is the ratio along the reporting time that is in question, as you also seem to be saying.... The use of the regression plot in that sense is utterly misleading. The linear plot is a dictate of the analyst, not the data. The "githeri" illustration is spot on to any hotly contested election. I have stayed up through several streaming of US election counts, and a near constant percentage margin, once established, tends to persist through most of the counting. It is not difficult to see why... After a substantial number of stations have reported randomly from across the nation, every incoming tally is small relative to to what has been reported already, and will therefore not have a huge impact on the established slope up to that time. If an incoming tally is representative of the population, it should not even affect the slope at that time. Such an argument, to go without professional diagnosis is a terrible display of incompetence, or non commitment to the course of justice. Reasonable people should have called for a simple examination of the argument by, for example, inspecting how the line moved when significant volumes of votes dropped in from chore Raila zones, and uhuru's zones on the other side. These two zones fight from either sides of the plot, while neutral zones fall on the line, and therefore a test of validity of the regression plot argument would be in whether incoming dots seemed to comply with expectation of where they belonged on the plot. Not whether there seemed to be a perfect fit of line on the pool at any point. The line is a dictate of the analyst, while the appearance of perfect fit is a result of both the intensity of the contest and "the law of large numbers".
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 22, 2017 14:59:32 GMT 3
Hmm. . . . . !! Are you sure Kethi Kilonzo made arguments in 2017 presidential election petition? I am not sure if I misspoke or if you misunderstood me. I meant arguments at the ICC. That was the only forum where I had heard her arguments before this, and contrary to what I caught on one media claim, that is where her name rose to the limelight... Not this latest event. Yes she did. I regret the confusion. Later I will find you the clip I listened to. In an afterthought I realize I must have listened to a dated clip. That makes sense of the observation of the media about her shooting to fame, without reference to her spectacular arguments at the ICC. My error.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 22, 2017 21:57:50 GMT 3
Do you know that the recount of the ballot was requested by Orengo during supreme court hearing and Uhuru’s lawyers objected to it - of course for obvious reasons at the time? If you never watched the exchange here is the transcript (not verbatim) of the exchange drama…… Orengo (Raila’s Lawyer): My lordship we seek to examine the ballot boxes to confirm how widespread these illegalities were. Paul Muite (IEBC lawyer): My lord CJ we have no objection to the request. Ngatia (Uhuru’s Lawyer): (jumps to interject) My lord the counsel for second respondent has not sought our views and it is our contention that such a request is objectionable by our client. We request that the court adjourns for 30 minutes to enable us consult with our client. This is a monumental request that may jeopardize my client... Maraga (Chief Justice): (consults all judges in including, Njoki Ndungu ) Okay we take a break of 30 minutes to allow consultation between counsel and client. 30 minutes later:Muite (IEBC lawyer): My lord CJ we object to the request by Petitioner to open the ballot boxes. Ngatia (Uhuru’s Lawyer): My lord our position concurs with the 1st respondent. We object to this application by the petitioner. Orengo (Lawyer for petitioner Raila): My Lord in that instance then we wish to withdraw that application and proceed on other lines...... FAST FORWARD A WEEKS AFTER SUPREME COURT VERDICT. Uhuru Kenyatta, Jubilee leaders and Pundits Weeks after the supreme court’s verdict nullifying and voiding the election and declaration of UK as the winner: OPEN THE BALLOT BOX!!!!! Njoki Ndungu: The SCOK erred by not ordering recount. Jubilee supporters and Lawyers: open the ballot boxes.... Smart Kenyans: are these robots or do they think that what goes around don't come around.... do they take us for fools?!!!!!!!! In short, to get a credible election then the IEBC must be allowed to make independent decisions with minimum undue pressure from those who think that they are vested in the country more than those that they perceive as their competitors. .. Interesting. Perhaps they deserve what they got, but Kenya for sure hasn't been shown to deserve the same.
|
|
|
Post by kasiaya on Sept 23, 2017 1:43:30 GMT 3
Kasiaya,
The lineear regression plot of the poll is new to me. Please share, if there is a digital story of it.
You challenge me to make you "believe that the poll results that were announced by IEBC are verifiable to be authentic (generated at the poll Station using form 34A or B)." I cannot do that, but I don't understand the basis of that challenge.
My counter challenge to you is for you to explain the case for distrusting the forms that opposing parties signed at tally points. In light of the court asserting that no evidence has been been presented to show non-conformance with the law, all the way up to and including counting, wouldn't those forms be the basis of proving that the numbers that were reported were manipulated, if they indeed were? Otherwise for what are party representatives needed to sign the form, if the form cannot be used in a case where the only procedures in question are those which occurred past the signature station?Mank, Here are the snippets of the digital reporting of how the results followed a predicted pattern as they were being released at different times to IEBC public portal. Otiende Amollo – gave a compelling presentation of the same during their 2+ hours of submission (additional video detailing the presentation are archived in YouTube) chetenet.com/2017/08/29/amollo-otiende-supreme-court/www.jambonewspot.com/nasa-lawyer-says-he-has-formula-that-jubilee-team-used-to-rig-elections/The basis for the challenge rests on the fact that a substantial number of form 34A/B had their numbers varied, do not have IEBC logo, lacks security feature and missing stamps etc. . . affecting more than 5 million votes. That is very substantial alteration that could have impacted the overall presidential vote results. Hope that helps. You can use algorithms (which incidentally have been debunked) but that will not change the physical count of the ballot papers and tallying them! What would help Kenyans and me in particular is details of where the votes counted did not tally with 34A as the primary document! I have read Mungai Kihanya's twisted theory as to why there was lack of randomness in the numbers as they were being anounced. Actually, the reasons he gave can be used to explain why there should be randomness and not the other way round - talk of twisted logic. Read more: jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/9598/indictment-supreme-court-kenya#ixzz4tS2C1rpw
|
|