|
|
Post by deyiengs on Mar 16, 2013 14:57:23 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by deyiengs on Mar 16, 2013 15:27:12 GMT 3
The only arguable issue is the voter register, but they are conveniently saying that the final register was not certified whilst this was done 18th February and a declaration that it was available online made in the notice. So it effectively rubbishes all allegations of excess voters. I agree, it is not as watertight.... Kamalet, please explain this: 31) I am aware that for the purposes of the 4th March elections the registration of voters was carried for the period between 19th November, 2012 to 18th December, 2012. At the end of which exercise the First and Second Respondents announced that 14,337,399 persons had registered as voters.
32) On or about February, 2013, the First and Second Respondents announced that they had discovered approximately 20,000 persons who had double registered and required the persons who had registered to examine the register. By Gazette Notice dated 18th February, 2013, the First Respondent proclaimed the Register for purposes of the 4th March, 2013 elections and finale and containing 14,267,572 as was displayed on its website.
33) In breach of the said mandatory legal requirement, the First Respondent has falsely, unlawfully and illegally in flagrant disregard of the law and its declaration of the result of the presidential election held on the 4th March, 2013 reflected the total number of registered voters as 14,352,533 well above the total number of the initial number of registered voters as the date of closing of 18th December, 2013. |
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Mar 16, 2013 16:18:51 GMT 3
I have just seen a summary of the petition in the standard digital paper and I want to declare with a very high degree of certainty that the case is not as water tight as we were made to believe. It is a very weak case, in fact it can be heard and thrown out in two-three days. Kazi iendelee. This is akin to a burglar noting he has inspected a premise and determined its security features and alarm system are superb; believe that at your own peril. Wiser counsel is you better believe the opposite and hasten to do the necessary before the same burglar strikes. Of course nothing is guaranteed when it comes to legal arguments; it depends on how one may sound credible and how they organize their thoughts and the quality of rebuttal. But just looking at what those guys have in that petition, it is hard to believe that it has been prepared by wakina Wako, Mutula and Orengo. It is hot air, no wonder Kalonzo Musyoka the sungura mjanja does not want his name anywhere near this skunk of a petition. |
|
bob
Full Member
Posts: 238
|
Post by bob on Mar 16, 2013 17:42:43 GMT 3
This is akin to a burglar noting he has inspected a premise and determined its security features and alarm system are superb; believe that at your own peril. Wiser counsel is you better believe the opposite and hasten to do the necessary before the same burglar strikes. Of course nothing is guaranteed when it comes to legal arguments; it depends on how one may sound credible and how they organize their thoughts and the quality of rebuttal. But just looking at what those guys have in that petition, it is hard to believe that it has been prepared by wakina Wako, Mutula and Orengo. It is hot air, no wonder Kalonzo Musyoka the sungura mjanja does not want his name anywhere near this skunk of a petition. Lets wait for the supreme court to deal with it & give the deserving Kenyans a verdict. If I were you I would pay attention to the constitution & the rights it gives you & all Kenyans at large ,then only you can understand the bigger picture on how IEBC made a mess of themselves & will be walking naked in the public eye in the very near future. It is sad that Issak & co. learnt nothing from the Kivuitu led team,they don't even seem to care about there own jobs let alone serving Kenyans. However you are free to thrash the petition at your on peril. |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Mar 16, 2013 18:09:38 GMT 3
The only arguable issue is the voter register, but they are conveniently saying that the final register was not certified whilst this was done 18th February and a declaration that it was available online made in the notice. So it effectively rubbishes all allegations of excess voters. I agree, it is not as watertight.... Kamalet, please explain this:31) I am aware that for the purposes of the 4th March elections the registration of voters was carried for the period between 19th November, 2012 to 18th December, 2012. At the end of which exercise the First and Second Respondents announced that 14,337,399 persons had registered as voters.
32) On or about February, 2013, the First and Second Respondents announced that they had discovered approximately 20,000 persons who had double registered and required the persons who had registered to examine the register. By Gazette Notice dated 18th February, 2013, the First Respondent proclaimed the Register for purposes of the 4th March, 2013 elections and finale and containing 14,267,572 as was displayed on its website.
33) In breach of the said mandatory legal requirement, the First Respondent has falsely, unlawfully and illegally in flagrant disregard of the law and its declaration of the result of the presidential election held on the 4th March, 2013 reflected the total number of registered voters as 14,352,533 well above the total number of the initial number of registered voters as the date of closing of 18th December, 2013. from the way these UNEXPLAINABLE things are rolling out ... all the way from pre-election controversies over the BVR-tendering, IEBC conduct during and after March 4, to the now theft of kits in Ruiru, where the police conveniently were absent on guard, I think to get to the bottom of the matter, will take a lengthy Judicial inquiry. With a scope far far beyond mere nullification of the current result. And accorded all the necessary time. In public. The post-moterm must encompass the whole period and tenure of the current IEBC. This because there are many more elections coming, and we the truths would help us evolve toward getting it right in future, so that we can become like others in far lands, like the boring Swiss who have no idea of the fun of rigging elections! |
|
|
|
Post by Omwenga on Mar 16, 2013 18:09:50 GMT 3
Of course nothing is guaranteed when it comes to legal arguments; it depends on how one may sound credible and how they organize their thoughts and the quality of rebuttal. But just looking at what those guys have in that petition, it is hard to believe that it has been prepared by wakina Wako, Mutula and Orengo. It is hot air, no wonder Kalonzo Musyoka the sungura mjanja does not want his name anywhere near this skunk of a petition. Lets wait for the supreme court to deal with it & give the deserving Kenyans a verdict. If I were you I would pay attention to the constitution & the rights it gives you & all Kenyans at large ,then only you can understand the bigger picture on how IEBC made a mess of themselves & will be walking naked in the public eye in the very near future. It is sad that Issak & co. learnt nothing from the Kivuitu led team,they don't even seem to care about there own jobs let alone serving Kenyans. However you are free to thrash the petition at your on peril. Bob, I echo your sentiments except to say there is nothing people like Mwalimumkuu lose by trashing the petition; in fact, they gain something in so doing and that's feeling themselves with a falsee sense of hope that the inevitable is not inevitable. |
|
|
|
Post by foresight on Mar 16, 2013 18:13:27 GMT 3
The best way to see the seriousness of this case is in understanding what the Petitioner (PM Raila Odinga) is asking the court to do:
and This is what PM Raila Odinga is asking the court to do...
1. Set aside the results of the Presidential election as announced by IEBC on 9March 2013, and the declaration of Uhuru Kenyatta as President-elect and William Ruto as Deputy President-elect respectively, and declare as null and void the whole electoral process leading to that declaration.
What the petition says:
•There was no free or fair presidential elections.
Consequently no government could lawfully be formed by or from the purported declaration on 9th March 2013, of Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto as President-elect and Deputy President-elect respectively, by the IEBC and its chairman to the dishonor of the Kenyan people.
•The voter register was severally altered as to make it difficult to tell which one was used finally.
For the purposes of the 4th March elections the registration of voters was carried out between 19November 2012 to 18th December, 2012, at the end of which the IEBC announced that 14,337,399 persons had registered as voters.
•In breach of the mandatory legal requirement, the IEBC has falsely, unlawfully and illegally in flagrant disregard of the law and its declaration of the result of the presidential election held on the 4th March, 2013 reflected the total number of registered voters as 14,352,533 well above the total number of registered voters as the date of closing of registration on 18th December, 2013.
Indeed, during February 2013, the IEBC announced that they had discovered approximately 20,000 persons who had double registered in the December registration, and accordingly reduced the register tally to 14,267,572 voters as displayed on its website.
The illegally inflated March 2013 register exceeded this corrected figure by some 85,000 voters.
•The Petitioner avers that increasing the number of registered voters was intended to permit the IEBC to manipulate the presidential election held on 4th March, 2013 and their purported results and declaration, on 9th March, 2013 was null and void.
That by abandoning the process of electronic identification at the polling stations and releasing results based not on the safeguarded, agreed, determined and credible electoral process it had promised and committed to, and by which legitimate expectations accrued, but a process that failed so significantly, substantially and endemically, IEBC effectively failed to reflect the will of the Kenyan people at the election.
•Arising from the acts and omissions of the IEBC, Hon. Raila Odinga and indeed the people of Kenya, were deprived of a free and fair election devoid of manipulation, an expectation which was denied, thereby irreparably undermining the entire process and result as declared on 9th March, 2013.
•Because of the IEBC and its chairman’s acts and omissions, the electoral process and the outcome thereof is so flawed in so fundamental and grave a sense, taken together or viewed separately, that it is difficult to tell whether the results were the true, lawful and proper expression of the Kenyan people's will.
•The EVID and BVR system and the electronic results transmission systems adopted by the First
Respondent were so poorly selected, designed and implemented that they were destined to fail from inception, to the knowledge of the IEBC; the failure and collapse, on a catastrophic scale on the polling day, so fundamentally changed the system of polling and the number of votes cast, owing to inordinate and inexplicable delays at the polling stations thereby reverting Kenya to the discredited manual system, with all the attendant risks and opportunities for abuse and manipulation which in fact took place.
•The IEBC and its chairman’s purported official tally of registered voters inexplicably and mysteriously grew overnight by a large proportion on the eve of the election, notwithstanding that registration had closed some thirty days and was by law not permitted to be opened or changed.
•The results as declared and recorded by IEBC contained wide spread instances of manipulation of the returns through manipulation of Form 36 and in some instances the votes cast exceeding the numbers of registered voters, in flagrant breach of the fundamental Constitutional principles (see examples below).
•Although a common register was to be - and indeed was - compiled for all the six levels of elections in the general elections of 4th March, 2013, it turned out from the results declared by IEBC that the total number of registered voters and votes cast in respect of the presidential elections in some instances exceeded that of the registered voters and those cast for Parliamentary elections after taking due account of any spoilt or rejected or disputed votes to the detriment of RailaOdinga.
The numerous instances of huge discrepancies in the total numbers of votes declared by the First and Second Respondent in the presidential election held on 4th March, 2013 is inexplicable upon any reasonable hypothesis other than the existence of actual ballot stuffing, multiple voting or gerrymandering or inflating of the numbers of votes in the tallying thereof by the IEBC or their officers or their condoning of or connivance in the same to the advantage of Uhuru and Ruto thereby rendering their alleged win invalid, illegal, null and void.
Anecdotal examples of widespread anomalies:
Glaring anomalies were observed in the process from voter registration, to transmission of results, to tallying.
(a) the result were declared on the basis of unsigned Form 36,
(b) multiplicity of Form 36, and variants of entries in some constituencies
(c) alterations on files and
(d) brazen disregard by the IEBC of the entries on the files of constituencies which were eventually reflected in the final tally of Presidential election results and which were announced without signed verification Form 34s.
Votes cast exceeded the number of registered voters, including Tiaty, Laisamis, Igembe Central, Buri, Chuka, IburiIgambaNgombe, Lari, Kapenguria, Saboti, Turbo, Marakwet West, Kajiado West, Bomet East, Mt Elgon, Langata and Aldai.
Results in Form 36 disclosed by the First Respondent were materially different from the results that were posted in the final tally of the presidential results published by the First Respondent. This included in Webuye East, Webuye West and Igembe Constituencies.
Registered voter numbers in polling stations were inflated in Form 34 contrary to what was contained in Form 36.
These included Kaproi Nursery School, Metipso Primary School, Maina Primary School, asaibul Primary School, Sewerwa Nursery School, Liter Secondary School, Chesongoch Catholic Church, Mungiwa Primary School, Chawich Primary School and Lemeuywo Primary School.
In most of those circumstances, more votes were cast than the total number of registered voters.
More than two Form 36 reflecting different returns.
These included Kikuyu Constituency, Juja Constituency, Chuka Constituency, Thika Constituency. Alterations in Form 36 without acknowledgment including Kiambaa and Limuru Constituencies.
More valid votes cast in some constituencies reflected in Forms 36 than in Form 34 including in Chesumei, Emngwen and Ainamoi. Different entries in two Forms 36 submitted in respect of the same constituency for example in Mathira Constituency.
Published results materially different from the results reflected in the County tallying, for example in Nakuru, not to mention the material variation between the verbal declaration made by the various Commissioners of IEBC at the national tallying centre allegedly after verification of results and the fiinal figures which are set out by the IEBC including those of South Imenti, Igembe South, Lagdera, North Imenti, Central Imenti, Boment East and Sigor.
Highlights/Quotes from the affidavit
" I believe that First and Second Respondents in breach of the Constitution, failed to establish systems which are accurate, secure, verifiable, accountable and/or transparent and indeed declared results which in many instances had no relation to votes cast at the polling station, developed methods which were opaque and intended to manipulate the results in the course of which the Petitioners’ representatives were altogether excluded from the process."
" In the final tally, the total number of votes cast in the Presidential Elections differed materially from those declared by the First and Second Respondents for purposes of the Gubernatorial and Parliamentary elections which took place on the same date clearly attesting to my belief that massive electoral fraud and malpractice occurred or permitted to occur by the First and Second Respondents in contravention of the requirements of the Constitution and the legislative framework in place as regards the 4th March, 2013 presidential election."
|
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 16, 2013 18:31:13 GMT 3
Was presidential election running on its own register apart from that of other offices, or why is it that it is only the presidential election that is a problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by foresight on Mar 16, 2013 18:38:58 GMT 3
If CORD can get the SUPREME COURT to Set aside the results of the Presidential election as announced by IEBC on 9March 2013, and the declaration of Uhuru Kenyatta as President-elect and William Ruto as Deputy President-elect respectively... they would have won their petition.
The case as presented raises questions which could easily lead to the return of that verdict.
Of course a water tight case in the mind of others would have meant something more "JUICER" perhaps a George Oraro saying "we have evidence caught in camera showing Uhuru Kenyatta giving IEBC chairman bribe in a hotel in Murang'a....... or something that outrageous... then that would constitute a water tight case...
I hate to dissapoint.. but that will not be the case here...
|
|
euonyi
Full Member
Me, myself and I
Posts: 179
|
Post by euonyi on Mar 16, 2013 18:43:06 GMT 3
Was presidential election running on its own register apart from that of other offices, or why is it that it is only the presidential election that is a problem? I am not a lawyer nor the father of one but the following occurs to me: The answer to your question is that it is for the simple reason that once the presidential election case is determined, it could open the way to the possibility of challenging some of the current positions (MP, Senator and Governor) on specific technical issues. It will be difficult for that to apply to the majority, but rather at least some. But first, the presidential one. You cant open a front to fight on all sides. Then when there is a by-election... we are in for some fun. |
|
euonyi
Full Member
Me, myself and I
Posts: 179
|
Post by euonyi on Mar 16, 2013 18:48:13 GMT 3
Have Kamalet and Mwalimumkuu read the CORD petition? How comes they are not commenting? Probably they were defending something they did not know the full extent.
I really am waiting to see the first ideas they post on this matter.
|
|
euonyi
Full Member
Me, myself and I
Posts: 179
|
Post by euonyi on Mar 16, 2013 18:55:42 GMT 3
Would this be a serious electoral offence?
|
|
|
|
Post by Man Of Letters on Mar 16, 2013 22:27:39 GMT 3
Was presidential election running on its own register apart from that of other offices, or why is it that it is only the presidential election that is a problem? I am not a lawyer nor the father of one but the following occurs to me: The answer to your question is that it is for the simple reason that once the presidential election case is determined, it could open the way to the possibility of challenging some of the current positions (MP, Senator and Governor) on specific technical issues. It will be difficult for that to apply to the majority, but rather at least some. But first, the presidential one. You cant open a front to fight on all sides. Then when there is a by-election... we are in for some fun. The above concerns are very valid. -If the petition is successful, then we would take it that I.E.B.C did not conduct the entire election in a free and fair manner. This would then invalidate all other results. -If this I.E.B.C. has been compromised, then it follows that they are not competent to do a recount or a runoff. Please weigh in legal minds |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 17, 2013 0:05:30 GMT 3
The only arguable issue is the voter register, but they are conveniently saying that the final register was not certified whilst this was done 18th February and a declaration that it was available online made in the notice. So it effectively rubbishes all allegations of excess voters. I agree, it is not as watertight.... Kamalet, please explain this: 31) I am aware that for the purposes of the 4th March elections the registration of voters was carried for the period between 19th November, 2012 to 18th December, 2012. At the end of which exercise the First and Second Respondents announced that 14,337,399 persons had registered as voters.
32) On or about February, 2013, the First and Second Respondents announced that they had discovered approximately 20,000 persons who had double registered and required the persons who had registered to examine the register. By Gazette Notice dated 18th February, 2013, the First Respondent proclaimed the Register for purposes of the 4th March, 2013 elections and finale and containing 14,267,572 as was displayed on its website.
33) In breach of the said mandatory legal requirement, the First Respondent has falsely, unlawfully and illegally in flagrant disregard of the law and its declaration of the result of the presidential election held on the 4th March, 2013 reflected the total number of registered voters as 14,352,533 well above the total number of the initial number of registered voters as the date of closing of 18th December, 2013. They say ignorance of the law is no excuse : I,NDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION (IEBC)
THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA THE ELECTIONS ACT
(No. 24 of 2011)
ELECTION (REGISTRATION OF VOTERS) REGULATIONS (2012)
NOTICE ON CERTIFICATION OF COMPILATION OF THE PRINCIPAL REGISTER OF VOTERS
IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by Section 2(1) (a), (b), (c) and 9 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of Kenya, Section 6(3) (a),(b), and (4), ), section 4 (a) and (b) of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Act, 2011, section 109 (1) (a), of tof the Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations, 2012, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission hereby gives notice that the compilation of the Principal of Register of Voters register of Voters for the purposes of the Elections has been completed.
The certified register of voters may be accessed on the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission’s website or at the offices of the Returning Officers for the different electoral areas.
18th February, 2013
Ahmed Issack Hassan, EBS
Chairperson
Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC)
Does this answer you on the extent of the ignorance of all these powerful lawyers Cord is claiming to have or is this theory of the American Lawyer that represented George W Bush that the Financial Times is reporting Raila has hired? |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 17, 2013 0:13:19 GMT 3
Guys
This is a petition that is drafted poorly and one bound to fail. Cord needed to show how they lost the election on the basis of all claims they are making with specific reference to the election of President.
Framed as it is,the Supreme Court will have a problem taking a decision that usurps the original jurisdiction of the high court as well as finding it difficult to nullify an entire general election when there may be no prayers at a lower level to do so.
A petition hinging on the register is bound to fail as custodian of the register is the IEBC and the courts would only deal with the register that the commission decides is legit. The court has no jurisdiction in the determination of the register that is used by the IEBC.
I can only hope that the summary does to contain all the alleged water tight case we were promised.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2013 1:19:21 GMT 3
FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 2013 - 00:00 -- BY POLITICAL DESK
A man and a woman who were scanning and printing scores of statutory election forms—P35 which is the record of all votes counted at county level—caused a stir at a popular cyber café along Kimathi Street. Many of the cybercafe users stopped their browsing as they gaped at the two. Surprised by the undue attention they had attracted, the two left before the police who had been altered had arrived. The P35 forms are among the documents that the IEBC has been directed by the High Court to provide CORD to enable it file its petition challenging the election of Uhuru Kenyatta as the country’s fourth president.www.the-star.co.ke/news/article-112156/corridors-power
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2013 1:22:08 GMT 3
POLICE TO INVESTIGATE ELECTION MATERIALS FOUND AT UNIVERSITY
SATURDAY, MARCH 16, 2013 - 13:00 -- NELLY GITAU
Investigations have been launched into the incident where Kenyatta University students destroyed IEBC election materials yesterday. Ababu Namwamba says they reported the matter to Central police and also took with them some material that they collected as evidence.www.the-star.co.ke/news/article-112482/police-investigate-election-materials-found-university
|
|
|
|
Post by deyiengs on Mar 17, 2013 3:05:46 GMT 3
Does this answer you on the extent of the ignorance of all these powerful lawyers Cord is claiming to have or is this theory of the American Lawyer that represented George W Bush that the Financial Times is reporting Raila has hired? No sir, that does not answer my questions. I think Oraro and co, understands that part. The Gazette Notice dated 18th February, 2013, for purposes of the 4th March, 2013 elections was 14,267,572. But presidential election held on the 4th March, 2013 reflected the total number of registered voters as 14,352,533 well above the total number of the initial number of registered voters as the date of closing of 18th December, 2013. That's where things don't add-up. (I must admit it's a small figure though of less than 100k) |
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 17, 2013 7:03:47 GMT 3
Does this answer you on the extent of the ignorance of all these powerful lawyers Cord is claiming to have or is this theory of the American Lawyer that represented George W Bush that the Financial Times is reporting Raila has hired?
No sir, that does not answer my questions. I think Oraro and co, understands that part.
The Gazette Notice dated 18th February, 2013, for purposes of the 4th March, 2013 elections was 14,267,572. But presidential election held on the 4th March, 2013 reflected the total number of registered voters as 14,352,533 well above the total number of the initial number of registered voters as the date of closing of 18th December, 2013.
That's where things don't add-up. (I must admit it's a small figure though of less than 100k)I find it hard to believe that someone meant to cheat by adding some less than 100 k votes to the register past the registration date. Is 14,352,533 a number that was on the register as of elections date, or is that the total voters as reflected by the tally of votes? Either way its an anomaly that needs to be explained, but not necessarily the same kind of anomaly. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 17, 2013 8:36:43 GMT 3
Does this answer you on the extent of the ignorance of all these powerful lawyers Cord is claiming to have or is this theory of the American Lawyer that represented George W Bush that the Financial Times is reporting Raila has hired? No sir, that does not answer my questions. I think Oraro and co, understands that part. The Gazette Notice dated 18th February, 2013, for purposes of the 4th March, 2013 elections was 14,267,572. But presidential election held on the 4th March, 2013 reflected the total number of registered voters as 14,352,533 well above the total number of the initial number of registered voters as the date of closing of 18th December, 2013. That's where things don't add-up. (I must admit it's a small figure though of less than 100k) Deyiengs I am looking at the figured that make the 18th Feb figure and will revert. However I do not agree with the figures given by Oraro since these are from his fuzzy maths. But you should also know about this latitude given to the commission by the law: (3) The Commission may amend the register of voters after it is certified to the extent necessary to reflect the result of determination of any claim, or appeal that was pending at the time the register was certified.
(4) The registration officer shall publish the certified register of voters in the following manner—
(a) by making the register available for inspection at such places as the Commission may designate, by notice in the Gazette;
(b) by posting, at a place within the registration area where the public has access, a notice of the availability of the register for inspection; and
(c) by having in place an electronic register which may be accessed on a website, using a mobile phone and such other electronic media as the Commission may determine. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 17, 2013 8:50:03 GMT 3
The good thing with a good research is that information is readily available. The figure of 14,352.533 was actually the figure declared on18th February.
This link should give you the number per county and IEBC website gives you a lot more statistics!
[a href="http://www.iebc.or.ke/index.php/media-center/press-releases?task=callelement&format=raw&item_id=218&element=f85c494b-2b32-4109-b8c1-083cca2b7db6&method=download&args[0]=ed1adec9a09b654ac99d870fe39a158d"]http://www.iebc.or.ke/index.php/media-center/press-releases?task=callelement&format=raw&item_id=218&element=f85c494b-2b32-4109-b8c1-083cca2b7db6&method=download&args[0]=ed1adec9a09b654ac99d870fe39a158d[/a]
Now if you still do not believe that Oraro and team have done a shoddy job, I can only imagine that yours is a case of a hope and prayer that some divine intervention will help out.
|
|
|
|
Post by podp on Mar 17, 2013 9:00:53 GMT 3
Will our supreme court manage to stay above politics and deliver fair ruling? 1) recount, 2) order of new election 3 dismissal Of the three which one is likely to be fair ruling? In my view, due to all that IEBC system failure, Fair ruling is definitely number 2.. 1st red high light In a perfect world it's suppose to work because they are in power for life so they don't need to worry about petty things like elections to make them bow to public pressure to do what their electoral body wants. In the real world they are in no way above politics and take part in it continually as can be seen by the fact that, when it comes to political issues, their votes almost always go along the lines of the political party that put them into power. Very rarely are the votes of the Judges surprising when it comes to issues of politics. 2nd red high light wish full thinking |
|
|
|
Post by mank on Mar 17, 2013 9:07:02 GMT 3
The good thing with a good research is that information is readily available. The figure of 14,352.533 was actually the figure declared on18th February.
This link should give you the number per county and IEBC website gives you a lot more statistics!
[a href="http://www.iebc.or.ke/index.php/media-center/press-releases?task=callelement&format=raw&item_id=218&element=f85c494b-2b32-4109-b8c1-083cca2b7db6&method=download&args[0]=ed1adec9a09b654ac99d870fe39a158d"]http://www.iebc.or.ke/index.php/media-center/press-releases?task=callelement&format=raw&item_id=218&element=f85c494b-2b32-4109-b8c1-083cca2b7db6&method=download&args[0]=ed1adec9a09b654ac99d870fe39a158d [/a] Now if you still do not believe that Oraro and team have done a shoddy job, I can only imagine that yours is a case of a hope and prayer that some divine intervention will help out[/size].[/quote] Kamale,I would not be surprised. I felt from the word go that nothing should be taken at face value in that petition, and that the numbers in particular seem to be mentioned in mischief. But go easy on the Oraros ... they have to come up with a case, and what they have put together is what they could come up with. The link you give does not indicate the date of publication. How do you conclude that the number is from Dec 18 then (the date of the "tyranny of numbers phenomenon")? |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Mar 17, 2013 9:33:07 GMT 3
The good thing with a good research is that information is readily available. The figure of 14,352.533 was actually the figure declared on18th February.
This link should give you the number per county and IEBC website gives you a lot more statistics!
[a href="http://www.iebc.or.ke/index.php/media-center/press-releases?task=callelement&format=raw&item_id=218&element=f85c494b-2b32-4109-b8c1-083cca2b7db6&method=download&args[0]=ed1adec9a09b654ac99d870fe39a158d"]http://www.iebc.or.ke/index.php/media-center/press-releases?task=callelement&format=raw&item_id=218&element=f85c494b-2b32-4109-b8c1-083cca2b7db6&method=download&args[0]=ed1adec9a09b654ac99d870fe39a158d [/a] Now if you still do not believe that Oraro and team have done a shoddy job, I can only imagine that yours is a case of a hope and prayer that some divine intervention will help out[/size].[/quote] Kamale,I would not be surprised. I felt from the word go that nothing should be taken at face value in that petition, and that the numbers in particular seem to be mentioned in mischief. But go easy on the Oraros ... they have to come up with a case, and what they have put together is what they could come up with. The link you give does not indicate the date of publication. How do you conclude that the number is from Dec 18 then (the date of the "tyranny of numbers phenomenon")?[/quote] Mank The date of the file on the website is 24th February and is amongst various statistical reports published after 18th February. Just go to the Downloads like of IEBC.or.ke and you will find similar data by constituency, polling stations etc. The sad reality of this case is that it does no help Raila force a repeat of the election. I was having a drink with some lawyers last night with two ODM leaning ones and they were disappointed that the summary was all they had. |
|
|
|
Post by nowayhaha on Mar 17, 2013 11:49:26 GMT 3
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF KENYA
PETITION NO. OF 2013
RAILA ODINGA ……………………………………………….PETITIONER
AND
THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND
BOUNDARIES COMMISSION……………………FIRST RESPONDENT
AHMED ISSACK HASSAN……………………SECOND RESPONDENT
UHURU KENYATTA……………………………..THIRD RESPONDENT
WILLIAM SAMOEI RUTO…………………....FOURTH RESPONDENT
PETITION
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF HON. RAILA ODINGA WHOSE ADDRESS OF SERVICE FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PETITION IS CARE OF ORARO AND COMPANY ADVOCATES, ACK GARDEN HOUSE- WING C, FIRST NGONG AVENUE, P O BOX 51236-00200, NAIROBI IS AS FOLLOWS:-
CONTENTS
PART I………………………………………………………POINTS OF LAW
PART II………………………………………………......………THE FACTS
PART III…………………………………THE GROUNDS FOR PETITION
PART IV………ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS FOR PETITION
PART V…………………………………ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
PART VI………………………………………………....RELIEFS SOUGHT
INTRODUCTION
The Parties.
The Petitioner is a citizen of Kenya by birth and a registered member of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), a political party duly registered under the Political Parties Act, 2011. The Petitioner was nominated by the ODM and the Cord Coalition to contest for the position of President of the Republic of Kenya during the General Election held on the 4th March, 2013. His address of service for purposes of this Petition is care of Oraro and Company Advocates, ACK Garden House- Wing C, First Ngong Avenue, P O Box 51236-00200, Nairobi.
The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, the First Respondent (The First Respondent), is a Constitutional organ established under Article 88 of the Constitution and whose operations are governed by the Constitution and Independent Electoral and Boundaries The First Respondent Act (Act No. 9 of 2011) (The IEBC Act). The First Respondent’s address of service for purposes of this Petition is care of Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, Anniversary Towers, 7th Floor University Way, Nairobi. Service of process shall be effected through the Petitioner's Advocates’ offices.
The Second Respondent is the Chairman of the First Respondent and was at all material times the Returning Officer at the Presidential election held on 4 March 2013. Service of process shall be effected through the Petitioner's Advocates’ offices.
The Third Respondent is a citizen of Kenya by birth and a registered member of The National Alliance Party (TNA), a political party duly registered under the Political Parties Act, 2011. The Third Respondent was nominated by TNA and the Jubilee Coalition to contest for the position of President of the Republic of Kenya during the General Election held on the 4th March, 2013. Service of process shall be effected through the Petitioner's Advocates offices.
The Fourth Respondent is a citizen of Kenya by birth and a registered member of the United Republican Party (URP) a political party duly registered under the Political Parties Act 2011. The Fourth Respondent was nominated by URP and the Jubilee Coalition to be the Third Respondent's running mate to contest for the position of Deputy President of the Republic of Kenya during the General Election held on 4 March 2013. Service of process shall be effected through the Petitioner's Advocates offices.
The Petitioner advances this petition under the Constitution of Kenya 2010, specifically Articles 38, 138 and 140 (1) thereof, and also relies upon various Articles of the same. The Petitioner also draws references to the Election's Act 2011, the Elections (General) Regulations 2012 and the IEBC Act, such laws being engaged after the violations of the framework of laws passed by the Republic of Kenya pursuant to the provisions of Article 82 of the Constitution to avoid such travesty as occurred in 2007 in relation to the management and conduct of presidential or general elections in the Republic of Kenya.
Preamble
As will emerge from the reliefs sought, the Petitioner seeks to effectively set aside not simply the results as announced by the First and Second Respondents and their aforesaid declaration, on 9th March, 2013, of the Third and Fourth Respondents as President-elect and Deputy President-elect respectively, but the whole of the electoral process leading thereto for reasons that will emerge hereunder.
The Petitioner contends and shall crave to have the Honourable Court consider the Petition herein in the context of Kenya's recent electoral history, the pain and trauma that Kenyan citizens endured during the 2007 electoral process and why it became necessary to ensure that the risk of a repeat of subversion of the sovereign will of Kenyans in a free and fair democratic process is avoided at all costs.
The government of the Republic of Kenya through a participatory process including civil society and the private sector devised what on the face of it are a set of rules, checks and balances intended to demonstrate not only to the citizens of Kenya, but the outside world and Kenya’s neighbours, that electoral process and its results was and would, from 20th August, 2013, being the effective date of the Constitution, be absolutely beyond reproach as to its integrity. To this end, and to achieve a critical outcome for all Kenyans and her place in the international community, the aforesaid intentions were secured in the binding legal instruments more particularly referred to below under the heading "The Points of Law".
More particularly, the Petitioner avers that prior to the General and Presidential election held in the Republic of Kenya on 4th March 2013, the First and Second Respondents, with the aim of assuring all stakeholders of the transparency and integrity of the process by which it decided to adopt an electronic process on the basis on which it registered the voters, identified them at polling stations and thereafter transmitted the results in many different occasions assured Kenyans, and the Petitioner, that the elections through the said means would be transparent and free from any manipulation and that not only would there be no unauthorized persons voting or incidences of double or multiple voting and that the transmission of results thereafter would be simple, fair and insulated from manipulation.
Further, the Petitioner avers and shall demonstrate that the First Respondent not only abandoned the process of electronic identification at the polling stations but released results based not on the safeguarded, agreed, determined and credible electoral process it had promised and committed to, and by which legitimate expectations accrued, but a process that failed so significantly, substantially and endemically, that it effectively vitiated whatever the proposed will of the Kenyan people might be or would have been in the aforesaid election. In this regard, the Petition states that every last check, rule and balance put in place to ensure the integrity of the electoral process was egregiously violated by the First and Second Respondents herein, and each of them, and thus nullified by inter alia the alternate ad hoc process that appears to have been devised by them in a manner not countenanced by the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Kenya.
The Petitioner states and shall prove that the electoral process under challenge herein and the conduct of the First and Second Respondents in relation thereto failed so grossly that it: (1) failed the people of Kenya, (2) failed Kenya in the observance of international best practice, (3) failed the statutory and constitutional imperatives that the First and Second Respondents were obliged to respect, uphold and defend with vigor and transparency, (4) cannot rationally or fairly be held to have achieved one of its fundamental objectives which is to uphold the rule of law and secure the sovereign will of the people of Kenya, (5) failed basic and universal principles of fair and free elections in a democratic society - all of which the harsh and painful lessons of the last (2007) election were intended to avoid and overcome.
The Petitioner avers and shall demonstrate that the First Respondent, having chosen and appointed the use of the Electronic Voter Identification and Biometric Voter Registration (EVID and/or BVR), and other electronic mechanisms (all of which were intended to replace the inherent uncertainties, difficulties and susceptibility to abuse and corruption of the manual system), could not on the 4th March, 2013 presidential election, at the very least without full open and constructive engagement with all political parties and candidates in the said election, change, alter or revert to a manual or any other system, as it did, midstream or in the midst of the electoral process, thereby effectively introducing a completely different electoral environment with different demands for checks and balances and rules, all of which would require, if it were in any event permitted by law which it wasn't, the political parties and the candidates thereat to mobilize personnel to understand and then oversee the new ad hoc process.
Arising from the acts and omissions of the First and Second Respondents’ under challenge herein, the Petitioner, and indeed the people of Kenya, were deprived of their legitimate expectation, on 4th March, 2013 to a new electoral dispensation, devoid of opportunities for and manipulation, an expectation which was denied, thereby irreparably undermining the entire process and result as declared on 9th March, 2013.
The First and Second Respondent’s acts and omissions, the electoral process and the outcome thereof under challenge herein were rampant and flawed in so fundamental and grave a sense, taken together or viewed separately, as to completely obliterate the possibility of discerning therefrom whether the said results were the true, lawful and proper expression of the Kenyan people's will in that they, the aforesaid acts and omissions, so substantially and materially went to the root and purpose for which the new electoral dispensation had been created and Constitution promulgated that this Honourable Court ought to do no less than nullify and declare invalid the alleged declaration, on 9th March, 2013, of the Third and Fourth Respondents as President-elect and Deputy President-elect respectively.
The Petitioner shall demonstrate under the different headings below and prove that a number of fundamental failures and contraventions of the Constitution and statutes occurred or were permitted to occur the details of which are hereunder:
the EVID and BVR system and the electronic results transmission systems adopted by the First Respondent were so poorly selected, designed and implemented that they were destined to fail from inception, this to the knowledge of the First and Second Respondent;
its failure and collapse, on a catastrophic scale on the polling day, so fundamentally changed the system of polling and the number of votes cast, owing to inordinate and inexplicable delays at the polling stations thereby reverting Kenya to the discredited manual system, with all the attendant risks and opportunities for abuse and manipulation which in fact took place;
the First and Second Respondents’ purported official tally of registered voters inexplicably and mysteriously grew overnight by a large proportion on the eve of the election, notwithstanding that registration had closed some thirty days and was by law not permitted to be opened or changed;
the results as declared and recorded by the First and Second Respondents contained wide spread instances of manipulation of the returns through manipulation of Form 36 and in some instances the votes cast exceeding the numbers of registered voters, in flagrant breach of the fundamental Constitutional principles.
Although a common register was to be -and indeed was- compiled for all the six levels of elections in the general elections of 4th March, 2013, it turned out from the results declared by the First and Second Respondents that the total number of registered voters and votes cast in respect of the presidential elections in some instances exceeded that of the registered voters and those cast for the gubernatorial and parliamentary elections after taking due account of any spoilt or rejected or disputed votes to the detriment of the Petitioner.
AND the Petitioner shall contend that these grave errors constituted fundamental contraventions of the letter, spirit and objects of the Constitution of Kenya. They were and remain inconsistent and in contravention thereof as well as the statutory framework in place to operationalize the Constitution. In the circumstances there was no free or fair elections. Consequently no government could lawfully be formed by or from the purported declaration on 9th March, 2013, of the Third and Fourth Respondent as President-elect and Deputy President-elect respectively, by the First and Second Respondents to the dishonor of the Kenyan people.
The Petitioner highlights the First and Second Respondent's obstructive and uncooperative approach, lack and failure of transparency and responsiveness to complaints and requests the details of which shall emerge at the hearing hereof. At some point, this necessitated your Petitioner and his agents obtaining an Order of the Superior Court (High Court at Nairobi) compelling the First and Second Respondent to do what its own enabling legislation demands that it does, and that which it is obliged by Articles 35 and 47 of the Constitution to do, and even then, the First Respondent demonstrated a an evasive and completely uncooperative approach all of which compromised the Petitioners right of access to information held by the Commission.
PART I POINTS OF LAW
The Constitution of Kenya 2010
In relation to the general election held on 4th March, 2013 and the process leading thereto, including the purported declaration of the Third and Fourth Respondents as President and Deputy President-elect respectively, by the Second Respondent on 9th March, 2013, the First and Second Respondents, and each of them, were obliged to uphold and observe the national values and principles of governance enshrined in the said Article 10 of the Constitution when:
Applying the Constitution, as they were required to do by Articles 86 and 88 of the Constitution as read with Section 4 of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Act, 2011 and the Regulations thereunder;
Applying the said Independent Electoral and Boundaries The First Respondent Act, 2011 and the Regulations thereunder and the Elections Act, 2011;
Making and implementing public policy decisions
particularly the following national values and principles of governance:
-the rule of law;
-democracy;
- participation of the people;
-inclusiveness;
-equality;
-human rights;
-non-discrimination;
-good governance;
-integrity;
-transparency; and
-accountability
The Petitioner states and shall demonstrate that the First and Second Respondents herein contravened or failed to observe each and all of the aforesaid national values and principles which were binding upon them as regards the said election and the whole electoral process leading up to the declaration made on 9th March, 2013 under challenge herein thereby rendering the same null, void and of no legal effect.
By dint of Article 2(5) and (6) of the Constitution, the general rules of international law and any treaty or convention ratified by Kenya form part of the law of Kenya thereby including, within the said framework, well known principles of democratic governance including universal adult suffrage and the requirement for free and fair elections.
The First and Second Respondents were and are obliged to act in the public trust and interest, in a manner consistent with the Constitution, with dignity and whilst promoting the integrity of their office as required by Article 73 thereof. In particular, they were obliged to ensure, as regards the 4th March, 2013 elections that: -
the electoral process leading up to the declaration made on 9th March, 2013 was and remained consistent with the purposes and objects of the Constitution;
it demonstrated respect for the will of the people of Kenya;
brought honour to the nation and dignity to the office in the conduct of elections;
promoted public confidence in the integrity of the
office and the system and results of the said elections;
the guiding principles as regards the conduct of the said election were competence, objectivity and impartiality in decision making, and in ensuring that their decisions were not influenced by favouritism, other improper motives or corrupt practices, selfless service based solely on the public interest, demonstrated by honesty in the execution of public duties; and the declaration of any personal interest that may conflict with public duties, accountability to the public for decisions and actions; and discipline and commitment in service to the people.
By virtue of Article 38(2) of the Constitution, the Petitioner herein, and every Kenyan citizen, has a right to free and fair elections based on universal suffrage and the free expression of the will of the electors which right the First and Second Defendants herein were bound and required to protect and secure for them in the general election of 4th March, 2013 but which they so grossly, recklessly and negligently violated and abrogated as detailed herein.
In particular, the Petitioner avers that the First and Second Defendants herein so conducted themselves that they took away and materially undermined, contravened or abrogated the mandatory requirement enshrined in Article Article 81 of the Constitution that Kenya’s electoral system, including the process leading up to, and the, presidential election of 4th March, 2013, which mandated them to comply with the following: -
freedom of citizens to exercise their political rights under Article 38;
universal suffrage based on the aspiration for fair
representation and equality of vote; and
free and fair elections, which are—
by secret ballot;
free from violence, intimidation, improper influence or corruption;
conducted by an independent body;
transparent; and
administered in an impartial, neutral, efficient, accurate and accountable manner.
Article 82(1)(d) required Parliament to enact legislation, which it did, for—
the conduct of elections and referenda and the regulation and efficient supervision of elections and referenda, including the nomination of candidates for elections;
the progressive registration of citizens residing outside Kenya, and the progressive realisation of their right to vote...;
In the context of such legislation ensure that voting at every election is—
(a) simple;
(b) transparent; and
(c) takes into account the special needs of—
(i) persons with disabilities; and
(ii) other persons or groups with special needs.
Article 86 of the Constitution requires the First and Second Respondents at every election, including the general election held on 4th March, 2013, to ensure that:
(a) whatever voting method is used, the system is simple,
accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable and transparent;
(b) the votes cast are counted, tabulated and the results
announced promptly by the presiding officer at each polling station;
the results from the polling stations are openly and accurately collated and promptly announced by the returning officer; and
appropriate structures and mechanisms to eliminate electoral malpractice are put in place, including the safekeeping of election materials.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid requirements, the said Respondents in breach of the Constitution, failed to establish systems which are accurate, secure, verifiable, accountable and/or transparent and indeed declared results which in many instances had no relation to votes cast at the polling station, developed methods which were opaque and intended to manipulate the results in the course of which the Petitioners’ representatives were altogether excluded from the process.
By virtue of Articles 2 and 3 as read together with Articles 259 and 260 of the Constitution, the First and Second Respondents were obliged to respect, uphold and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya as regards the entire electoral process leading up to and the general election of 4th March, 2013. Instead they abrogated their obligations and duties under the Constitution and decided to adopt an evasive and flagrant disregard of its provisions.
Indeed, the First and Second Respondents herein could not claim or exercise State authority as regards the said elections except as authorised under the Constitution.
The Petitioner therefore contends and shall seek declarations that any acts or omissions of the First and Second Respondents herein in contravention of the Constitution as regards the said election are void and invalid.
The Elections Act 2011
Pursuant to Article 82 of the Constitution, Parliament enacted the Elections Act, 2011, which operationalized and was among the statutes intended to address the lessons of the 2007 electoral processes.
A reconciliation between the votes cast in the Presidential elections of 4th March 2013 and that in respect of other 5 elections, this clause revealed a huge discrepancy between the votes cast in the presidential elections and that of the other elections to the extent that the excess votes cast in the Presidential elections were not valid, the First and Second Respondents have committed an election office under S. 59 (f) of the Election Act.
The Second Respondent, and members of the First Respondent, staff or other persons having any duties to perform in the presidential election held on 4th March, 2013 were prohibited by Section 59(1)(j)(k), (l) and (m) from doing any of the following which are criminal offences under the Act:-
without reasonable cause doing or omitting to do anything in breach of his official duty;
colluding with any political party or candidate for purposes of giving an undue advantage to the political party or candidate;
wilfully contravening the law to give undue advantage to a candidate or a political party on partisan, ethnic, religious, gender or any other unlawful considerations; or
failing to prevent or report to the First Respondent and any other relevant authority, the commission of an electoral malpractice or offence committed under the Act.
The Registration of voters is provided for under Section 5 of the Elections Act which provides that the registration of voters and revision of the Register of Voters shall be carried out at all times except inter alia, between the date of commencement of the sixty (60) period immediately before the election and the date such election. For the purposes of the 4th March elections the registration of voters was carried for the period between 19th November, 2012 to 18th December, 2012, at the end of which exercise the First and Second Respondents announced that 14,337,399 persons had registered as voters.
In breach of the mandatory legal requirement, the First Respondent has falsely, unlawfully and illegally in flagrant disregard of the law and its declaration of the result of the presidential election held on the 4th March, 2013 reflected the total number of registered voters as 14,352,533 well above the total number of registered voters as the date of closing of registration on 18th December, 2013.
Indeed, during February 2013, the First and Second Respondents announced that they had discovered approximately 20,000 persons who had double registered in the December registration, and accordingly reduced the register tally to 14,267,572 voters as displayed on its website. The illegally inflated March 2013 register exceeded this corrected figure by some 85,000 voters.
The Petitioner avers that increasing the number of registered voters was intended to permit the said Respondents to manipulate the presidential election held on 4th March, 2013 and their purported declaration, on 9th March, 2013 of the Third and Fourth Respondent as President and Deputy President-elect respectively was null and void.
The Elections (General) Regulations 2012
By virtue of Regulation 59(1) of the aforesaid Regulations every election, including that of the presidential election held on 4th March, 2013 was and is to be by secret ballot and be held in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Elections Act and the said Regulations.
The Petitioner avers that the numerous instances of huge discrepancies in the total numbers of votes declared by the First and Second Respondent in the presidential election held on 4th March, 2013 is inexplicable upon any reasonable hypothesis other than the existence of actual ballot stuffing, multiple voting or gerrymandering or inflating of the numbers of votes in the tallying thereof by the First and Second Respondents herein or their officers or their condoning of or connivance in the same to the advantage of the Third and Fourth Respondents thereby rendering their alleged win invalid, illegal, null and void.
By dint of Regulation 79, the First Respondent’s Presiding Officer was required to ensure that the candidates in the presidential elections held on 4th March, 2013 or their agents in Form 34 set out in the Schedule and:
immediately announce the results of the voting at that polling station before communicating the results to the returning officer;
request each of the candidates or agent then present to append his or her signature;
provide each political party, candidate, or their agent with a copy of the declaration of the results; and
affix a copy of the declaration of the results at the public entrance to the polling station or at any other place convenient and accessible to the public at the polling station;
Where any candidate or agent refuses or otherwise fails to sign the declaration form, the candidate or agents shall be required to record the reasons for the refusal or failure to sign;
Where a candidate or an agent refuses or fails to record the reasons for refusal or failure to sign the declaration form, the presiding officer shall record the fact of their refusal or failure to sign the declaration form;
Where any candidate or agent of a candidate is absent, the presiding officer shall record the fact of their absence.
The refusal or failure of a candidate or an agent to sign a declaration form or to record the reasons for their refusal to sign as required would not by itself invalidate the results announced;
The absence of a candidate or an agent at the signing of a declaration form or the announcement of results would not by itself invalidate the results announced;
In many instances in Presidential elections, particularly in Form 36 returns, the returns were made without the signature of agents and in majority of cases were created at the tallying centre in Nairobi after the fact.
While under Regulation 82 the First Respondent had committed vast resources purportedly to create an infrastructure to transmit results in an electronic form and indeed in the past elections, including the Referendum, had so transmitted the results through electronic means. On 4th March 2013, the attempt to transmit the results commenced with the transmission of results which in the initial stages exhibited constant variants between the two leading candidates with a large number of rejected votes contrary to the expectation that the transmission would be random and accordingly randomly variable. After reaching about 40% of the transmission, it stopped altogether. The excuse from the First Respondent was that there was a technical hitch but thereafter the First and Second Respondent abandoned the electronic means of receiving the results, and reverted to the discredited manual process.
The First and Second Respondent presented to the parties that they would participate in the auditing and reconciliation of the Form 36, which would now constitute the primary document from which the results would be verified and tallied by Form 34. The reconciliation proceeded for 16 constituencies, but as soon as the First and Second Respondent noted that there were discrepancies among some of the files that were being verified in the process of tallying it ejected all the agents and commenced on unilaterally announcing the results without the participation of and in the absence of the Petitioners agents
The IEBC Act
The Petitioner shall rely upon Section 4 of the IEBC Act by virtue of which the First and Second Respondents herein are charged with the responsibility for conducting general elections, including the presidential election held on 4th March, 2013 and thereby required to do so in accordance with Article 88(4) of the Constitution particularly the duty to facilitate the observation, monitoring and evaluation of elections.
For purposes of the said presidential election, the First and Second Respondents herein were bound and required by Section 25 of the IEBC Act to observe, inter alia, the following principles, in accordance with the Constitution of Kenya:
(a) freedom of citizens to exercise their political rights under Article 38 of the Constitution;
(b) universal and equal suffrage based on the aspiration for fair representation and equality of votes;
(e) free and fair elections, which are—
(i) by secret ballot;
(ii) free from violence, intimidation, improper influence or corruption;
(iii) conducted independently;
(iv) transparent; and
(v) administered in an impartial, neutral, efficient, accurate and accountable manner;
(g) ethical conduct; and
(h) fairness.
|
|
