|
|
Post by nowayhaha on Mar 22, 2013 13:07:13 GMT 3
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF KENYA
BETWEEN
RAILA ODINGA .................................................. PETITIONER
AND
INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND
BOUNDARIES COMMISSION .......................... 1 ST RESPONDENT
AHMED ISSACK HASSAN .............................. 2ND RESPONDENT
UHUIlU KENYATTA ....................................... :31UD RESPONDENT
WILLIAM SAMOEI IlUTO ............................... 4TH RESPONDENT
RESPONSE TO THE PETITION BY THE FIIlST AND SECOND
RESPONDENTS
In response to the Petition, the 1st and 2 nd Ilespondents state
that:-
1. The First and Second Respondents admit paragraphs 1.1, 1.2,
1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 in so far as the same are merely descriptive
of the parties save that their address of service for the
purposes of this Petition is care of Mohammed Muigai
Advocates, MM Chambers, 4th Floor, K-REP Centre Wood
Avenue, Off Lenana Iload, Kilimani P.O. BOX. 61:32:3-
00200 Nairobi.
-.,
r ,
PREAMBLE
2. In matters of elections the will of the people must prevail and
courts will be understandably extremely slow to set at naught
the will of the people truly and freely exercised (Justice
Thakkar of the Supreme Court of India in 'AzharHussain
vs. Rajiv Gandhi').
3. During the eighteen (18) months that the Commission has
been in existence, it has completed activities that require an
election cycle of five (5) years. The Commission has carried out
both pre and post polling day activities including
recommendations for design and drafting of the necessary
regulations (including the Codes of Conduct), recruitment and
training of electoral staff both permanent and temporary and
the testing of sophisticated technology, electoral planning,
delimitation, voter registration, registration of political parties
(by the Registrar of Political Parties), engagement with the
nomination of political party candidates and particularly, the
resolution of pre-election disputes, regulation of electoral
campaigns, polling, counting, tabulation of results, declaration
of results, media access, institutional strengthening and
professional development and networking with stakeholders
and particularly the Kenyan people.
4. The Second Respondent carried out the most complex and
unprecedented general election in the history of Kenya,
requiring the hiring, training, deployment and supervision of
over 300,000 temporary personnel, in addition to its regular
permanent staff, acquisition of un-paralleled large quantities
of equipment, some, highly sophisticated and both strategic
and non-strategic, and the completion of all these activities of
an entire electoral cycle within eighteen (18) months. Kenyans
also were waiting and would not accept a day's delay in
exercIsIng their sovereign will. Elections for six (6) elective
positions of President (and Deputy President), Governor (and
Deputy Governor), Senator, Member to the National Assembly,
Woman Member to the National Assembly, and County
Assembly Member were all held on one day the 4th of March
2013, a very special first in Kenya's history.
THE FACTS
5. By virtue of Article 138(10) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
("the Constitution"), the Second Respondent is mandated to
declare the result of a Presidential Election, and deliver a
notification of the result thereof to the Honorable the Chief
Justice and the incumbent President of the Republic of Kenya.
6. The Presidential election conducted on 4th March 2013, saw
Hon. Uhuru Kenyatta garner 6,173,433, being 50.070/0 of total
votes, thus satisfying the requirements of Article 138(4) of the
Constitution to be declared the President-elect.
7. The Second Respondent thereafter declared Hon. Uhuru
Kenyatta as the President-elect on the 9th of March 2013 as
mandated by the law.
8. That with a voter turnoutof 86 0/0, the logistical challenges
faced by the Commission and the long queues witnessed at
polling stations across the country in no way disenfranchised
Kenyans, rather the First Respondent (the Commission) and
the Second Respondent encountered the challenges that arose
with resolve and provided pragmatic solutions in accordance
with the law.
9. There is no lawful basis whatsoever advanced by the Petitioner
that would warrant either the setting aside of the results as
announced and the subsequent declaration of the Third and
Fourth Respondents as President and Deputy President-elect
respectively on the 9th of March 2013, or the electoral process
as a whole.The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction, under
Article 140 of the Constitution, to set aside the whole electoral
process, and the orders sought constitute a subversion of the
constitutional order.
10. Whereas the events of 2007 provide the necessary backdrop
in interrogating the conduct of the 2013 general elections, the
factual and legal matrix of the 2013 general elections is by no
stretch of imagination comparable to the 2007 general
elections. The only common denominator is the Petitioner who
has disputed both results.
11. The Government of Kenya through the First Respondent put
in place a robust institutional and statutory framework to
ensure that the elections held in 2013 were free, fair and
credible elections. The Second Respondent has been a faithful
steward of the electoral process.
12. The reports of various electoral observers and monitors, both
local and foreign have confirmed that the process of voting and
counting of ballots, and the transmission and tallying of
results, was conducted as required by law and the general
election of 2013 was free fair and orderly.
THE DEPLOYMENT AND USE OF VARIOUS TECHNOLOGICAL!
ELECTRONIC DEVICES IN THE PREPARATION FOR AND
CONDUCT OF THE GENERAL ELECTIONS
13. The Commission, in the exercise of its mandate under
Articles 86 and 88(4) of the Constitution, and Section 4(m) of
the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Act,
deployed the use of various information technology based
systems for the registration of voters, facilitation of voting, and
the transmission of election results during polling day, all
aimed at improving the efficiency of the electoral process. The
said technology was, however, in no way meant to substitute
but rather to complement the statutorily provided manual
electoral processes.
14. The introduction and subsequent implementation of the
various Information Technology systems deployed by the
Commission, particularly in the 4th March 2013 general
elections, have been addressed in detail in the Affidavit of
Dismas Ong'ondi, in support of the 1st and 2nd Respondents'
Joint Replying Affidavit.
15. In response to Paragraphs 2.7 - 2.9 inclusive of the Petition,
it is averred that the Commission did not "abandon" the
process of electronic voter identification at the polling stations,
and the Result Transmission System (RTS).It is denied that
the same were 'poorly selected, implemented and designed
to fail' as alleged by the Petitioner. Presiding officers
experienced challenges in the use of the Electronic Voter
Identification Devises (EVID) in some polling stations, which
subsequently continued with the use of the manual registers,
which themselves contained biometric details of the voters,
more specifically, the passport-sized photographs of the
voters. The integrity of the electoral process was, neither
violated, vitiated, breached, compromised or rendered
ineffective.
16. The people of Kenya were not deprived of their legitimate
expectations.
17. In further answer to the above, with the challenges faced in
the deploymen t of the two primary technologies on election
day- the EVID and the RTS, the Commission maintained the
use of the primary manual electoral processes, which were not
in any way challenged, and constructively engaged political
parties in the processes of voting, counting, transmission,
tallying and announcement of results. In addition, after the
RTS experienced operational challenges, the Commission, at
the National Tallying Centre (Bomas of Kenya), held a
consultative meeting with Chief Political Party agents, and
agreed with them on modes of verification of presidential
election results brought to Bomas by constituency Returning
Officers (ROs).
18. The Commission's Presiding Officers did not breach
Regulation 82 of the Elections (General) Regulations, 2012, as
alleged by the Petitioner, since they indeed tried to transmit
the said provisional results, but due to technological
challenges, did not succeed. The further supporting affidavit of
DismusOng'ondi regarding the reasons for the failure of the
RTS is instructive.
19. The design of the electoral system, and the processes of
voting, counting, transmission, tallying and announcement of
election results, as contemplated under the Constitution, the
Election Act, and attendant regulations, is primarily a manual
system of voting, which was configured with various
safeguards to promote the integrity of the process. The use of
various electronic devices was an additional instrument to
promote efficiency, and transparency, but not to substitute
the legally stipulated electoral procedured. Further, when the
various technological devices such as the Electronic Voter
Identification Device (EVID) and the RTS experienced
challenges in some of the polling stations, the Commission
communicated the said challenges to the public by way of"t ,,-
real-time / live television broadcasts, and also informed the
public of the steps it was taking to either resolve the
challenges and ensure the electoral process remained on
course.
20. Since its establishment, the Commission has exercised its
mandate within the framework of the Constitution of Kenya,
the electoral laws and regulations.
21. In response to paragraph 2.10 of the Petition, the First and
Second Respondents state that the tally of registered voters
was as was certified by the Commission on the 18th of
February 2013 that is - 14,352,545 voters (which number is
the number of 14,352,533 and an additional 12 voters from
Soi Constituency in UasinGishu County who were mistakenly
registered using the training code in the BVR kits). A further
31,318 voters whose biometric information was not captured
during the voter registration exercise were also allowed to
vote.Further, the Petitioner's said averments are misconceived,
since they are based on the use of the provisional statistics
given to them by the Registrar of Political Parties for purposes
of planning for their political party nominations and for
subsequent deployment of agents and internal logisticsby
political parties.
22. That in further response to paragraph 2.10, there was
neither manipulation of the Form 36 nor the results declared.
There was no declaration of results that were in excess of
registered voters in any polling station. It is denied that the
total number of registered voters and votes cast in respect of
presidential elections in some instances exceeded that of the
registered voters and those cast for the gubernatorial and
parliamentary elections and the Petitioner is put to the strict
proof thereof.
23. The First and Second Respondents deny that there were
grave errors committed or indeed that there was fundamental
contravention of the letter, spirit and objects of the
Constitution of Kenya or the legal framework for elections and
affirm that they delivered a free and fair electoral outcome that
shall form the basis of legitimate government.
24. In response to paragraph 2.12 of the Petition, the First and
Second Respondents were throughout the electoral process
facilitative of the needs of all presidential candidates including
the Petitioner.
25. In response to paragraphs 3.1- 3.12 inclusive of the Petition,
the Commission upheld the Constitution and in particular the
Bill of Rights, principles of leadership and integrity and the
provisions relating to representation of the people and indeed
discharged its mandate in establishing accurate, secure,
verifiable, accountable and transparent systems for
conducting the general elections, and exhibited the elaborate
systems and safeguards con tained in various electoral
regulations that the Commission formulated, and Parliament
approved, under Section 109 of the Elections Act. These
include:
(a) The Elections (General) Regulations, 2012;
(b) The Elections (Rules of Procedure and Settlement of
Disputes) Regulations, 2012;
(c) The Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations,
2012;
26. The First and Second Respondents avers that the SIX
elections comprising the general election are each distinct and
separate elections. No inferences can be drawn from any
variance in the votes cast in each election.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS AND THE COMPILATION OF
THE PRINCIPAL REGISTER OF VOTERS
27. In response to Paragraphs 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and
2.7, the correct position is as follows regarding the process of
registration of voters and the compilation of the Principal
Register of Voters.
28. The Commission gave notice that it was to commence the
process of the compilation of a voters register, on the 17th of
November 2012 vide gazette notice number 16757.
29. In the conduct of the voter registration exercise, which was
carried out by the Commission throughout the country from
the 17th of November 2012 to the 18th of December 2012, the
commission used Biometric Voter Registration Kits.
30. At the conclusion of the voter registration exerCIse on the
18th of December 2012, the Commission sought and collated
provisional statistics on voter registration from its various
registration officers in the field, which resulted into a total of
14,337,399 registered voters.
31. This figure was provisional, pending verification of the data
downloaded from the registration devices from the registration
officers. This meant that the figure of 14,337,399 registered
voters was likely to increase once all the registration data had
been received from the registration officers in the field.
32. The figure of 14,337,399 registered voters being a
provisional statistic arising from an incomplete tally was likely
to change once all the information as to the number of
persons who had registered as voters was considered.
33. Until the Commission certified the register as by law
required, the information it held regarding those people who
had applied to register as voters, remained statistics and were
in no shape or form the principal register of voters.
34. In order to prepare the principal register of voters, the
Commission de-duplicated the provisional register. ThisI , ,
process involved the removal of people who had registered
more than once. These people were moved to the duplicates
section of the register. Persons who had registered with
documents other than those permitted by law, which were a
national identity card or a valid passport, and any other
permitted exceptions were removed to the exceptions section
of the register. Persons in the duplicate and exceptions
sections of the register were not allowed to vote. Persons who
had been inadvertently left out of the register were also
included in the register at this time.
35. In compliance with the Elections (Registration of Voters)
Regulations, 2012, the Commission opened up the provisional
register to the public for inspection and verification between
the 14th of January 2013 and the 27th of January 2013.
36. After the inspection process, the Commission realized that
there were 31,318 persons who had been registered and
whose biometric details had not been captured. This was due
to the fact that certain people, due to the nature of their work,
age or disability did not have biometric information or
features. This group was registered in a section of the
principal register entitled the "Register Without Biometrics"
(commonly referred to as the Special Register), so as not to
disenfranchise them.
37. Political parties were duly informed by the Commission
about the existence of this section of the Principal Register of
Voters. They were also informed that persons in this section of
the Principal Register of Voters would be allowed to vote in the
general election which was to be held on the 4th of March
2013.
38. After the Commission concluded all the adjustments to the
provisional statistics arIsIng from the abovementioned
inspection process, the Commission on the 18th of February
2013 met and certified the register as provided by the
Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations, 2012.
39. At the time it was certified the Principal Register of Voters
had 14, 352,545 duly registered voters in the Biometrics
Register and 31,318 voters in the Register Without Biometrics.
40. The Principal Register of Voters sent to each of the electoral
units contemplated above is comprised of the following parts:
(a) The Biometrics section; this comprised of voters whose
biometric information had been captured, the exceptions
section and the duplicates section.
(b)The Register Without Biometrics, comprising of persons with
indistinguishable biometric features, e.g. fingers and facial
features.
41. The fact of certification of the Principal Register of Voters
was published vide Gazette Notice Number 2222 of 18th
February 2013. The Commission further advertised the said
fact in local daily newspapers with national circulation.
42. Whereas the said advertisements indicated that the principal
register of voters was available on the Commissions website,
the same was not uploaded on to the Commissions website
until the 24th of February 2013. This delay in uploading the
principle register of voters onto the Commission's website was
occasioned by the fact that the said register was still being
divided into administrative streams for ease of voting.
43. In response to paragraph 2.4 of the Petition, the figure of
14,267,572 was the number gleaned from a document that
was work in progress. As stated above, the certified number of
voters in the principal register of voters was 14,352,545.
44. In response to paragraph 2.7 of the Petition, the First and
Second Respondents aver that there was neither artificial
inflation of the total number of registered voters or at all and
puts the Petitioner to the strict proof thereof.
PROCEDURE FOR VERIFICATION, TALLYING AND
ANNOUNCEMENT OF PRESIDENTIAL RESULTS AT THE
NATIONAL TALLING CENTRE AND THE PARTICIPATION OF
POLITICAL PARTIES
45. The Commission, so as to ensure that the results tallied
were accurate, went over and above the provisions of the
Elections Act and Regulation 83 of the Elections (General)
Regulations, 2012 and established an elaborate audit process
as follows:
(a) The Commission constituted a 2-step audit process
which comprised a regional team to look at returns
from specific regions as described below, and a
verification team to countercheck the regional teams
findings.
(b)The said teams at Bomas were gIven specific duties
towards checking and verification of the presidential
election results prior to and after announcement of the
results by the Commission.
(c) All the Returning officers at the constituency level were
required to personally and physically deliver the
Presidential election results at Bomas. For those
Returning officers in far-flung electoral areas, they
would be airlifted to N airo bi.
(d)Once a Returning officer arrived at Bomas, he or she
would be required to sign in and indicate the time in
which he or she arrived.
(e)The regional team at the National Tallying Centre was
organized into ten (10) teams (which had at least 4
people at any time) that handled electoral results from
various regions, as follows:
1. Team 1 - Western - Kakamega, Vihiga, Bungoma
and Narok;
11. Team 2 Eastern Marsabit,
Isiolo ,MeruTharakaNithi,Kitu, Machakos and
Makueni;
111. Team 3 - Central and South Rift -Trans -Nzoia,
UasinGishu, ElgeyoMarakwet, Nandi, Baringo,
Laikipia, Nakuru,Narok, Bomet, Kericho;
IV. Team 4 - Garissa, Wajir, mandera;
v. Team 5 - Central- Nyandarau, Nyeri, Kirinyaga;
VI. Team 6 - Nyanza - Siaya, Kisumu, Homabay,
Migori, Kisii, Nyamira
V11. Team 7 - Coast - Mombasa, K wale, Kilifi,
Tanariver, Lamu and TaitafTaveta;
VI11. Team 8-Nairobi, Kajiado, Thika, Muranga and
Kiambu;
IX. Team 9 - North Rift-Turkana, West Pokot and
Samburu;
x. Team 10 - Diaspora Stations-Tanzania, Uganda,
Rwanda and Burundi.
(f) Once the returning officer signed in at Bomas, he was
shown the relevant work station and the regional team
that would receive and process the results.
(g) The regional team received from the Returning Officer
the Form 34s for Presidential Elections and Form 36,
on both hard and soft copies. It then ran a sanity test
of the results as tabulated in the forms 36 received
from the RO, which tests entailed checking the forms
for the following:-
1. That the number of valid votes cast plus rejected
votes equals to the total votes cast; and
11. That the total number votes cast for all
candidates equaled the total number of valid votes
cast;
(h)If the sanity test revealed inaccuracies, such as e.g.
transposition errors this was rectified.
(i) After the initial reVIew by the regional team, the
Returning Officer was then forwarded to the next team,
the Verification Team, which checked the Form 34s
and Form 36.
J) After the Verification Team made changes, if any it
certified that the results were proper, and printed the
NEW Form 36 for signature by the Returning officer
and the Verification Team leader.
(k) The Form 36 was then referred to the chief Political
party agents, stationed at the board room in the
auditorium within Bomas. The agents were given about
twenty minutes to countercheck the Form 36 with their
tallies, and would ralse any Issue they had with the
Form 36.
(l) The document would then be forwarded by the IEBC &
political party liaison to the main audit team, which
would once again verify the Form 36, and provide a
written summary of the numbers therein, for
announcement at plenary.
(m) The Summary and the Form 36 would then be
forwarded to the Commissioners, who would once
again look through the document, before announcing
the results at plenary.
(n)After the announcement of the results by the
Commissioners, the Form 36 would once again be
referred to a team of two electoral officials, who would
once again verify and formally input the data from the
Form 36 into a spreadsheet for the final Presidential
election results.
(o)In total, there were the following levels of scrutiny of
the Presidential election results:
1. Counting and re-counting of votes at the polling
centre;
11. Tallying at the constituency tallying centre;
111. Tallying at the County tallying Centre;
I
IV. Review by the regional tallying teams at the
national tallying centre
v. Review by the Verification Team at the national
tallying centre;
VI. Scrunity by political party agents;
Vll. Verification by the IEBe commissioners;
VIll. Verification by the team of 2 before official input
of data into spreadsheet.
46. With regard to the paragraphs 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6,
5.7, 5.B, 5.9, and 5.10 of the Petition, the further affidavits
sworn in reply clarify and disprove the allegations by the
Petitioner regarding unsigned form 36s, variants of entries in
some constituencies, alterations on files, unsigned verification
form 34s, cast votes exceeding the number of registered
voters, materially different results in form 36s from those
posted in the final tally, inflation of votes cast in form 34s and
the other concerns cited.
47. Paragraph 6.1 of the Petition is denied.
48. Paragraphs 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 are denied and for the
avoidance of doubt the First and Second Respondents state
that there are no constitutional or statutory violations, gross
or wide spread irregularities and malpractice that occurred or
indeed that votes were wrongfully credited to the Third
Respondent or indeed any other candidate and there is no
basis therefore for seeking a nullification of the votes cast in
the polling stations cited by the Petition or indeed in any other
polling station and the Third Respondent was therefore
lawfully declared President - elect pursuant to Article 138 (4 )
of the Constitution. The sovereign will of the people of Kenya
was respected and upheld in accordance with the Constitution
of Kenya 2010.
49. Throughout the electoral cycle and particularly during the
campaigning period, voting day and counting and tallying of
results, the Commission recognized the key importance of
security and the need to consult and engage with the other
Government departments so as to ensure that adequate
security arrangements were made.
50. Further, the Commission made elaborate security
arrangements in all parts of the country. Indeed, the electoral
exercise was peaceful in most parts of the country, except for
few incidences of insecurity in some parts of Mombasa, Kilifi
and Garissa County, which incidents were dealt with as
appropriate by the Security apparatus, details whereof are
contained in the Affidavits in further reply to this petition.
51. With regard to Part IV, 'Arguments in support of the
Grounds for Petition', the First and Second Respondents aver
that the same are not in law maintainable for the following
reasons:-
(a) The Commission discharged its mandate in compliance
with the constitutional, statutory, and regulatory
mandate, and declared a valid outcome of the
presidential elections;
(b)The Commission compiled and certified a principal
register of voters as envisaged by Section 4 of the
Elections Act; and did not increase registration by
85,000 voters as alleged in paragraph 1.1 of the
Petition or at all after the 19th of December 2012;
(c) Voters were not disenfranchised;
(d)The petitioner has misrepresented the role and status
of the various technologies employed during the
general elections held on the 4th march 2013;
( e) The challenges faced in the use of the technologies
notwithstanding, the Commission put In place
adequate measures that ensured free, fair and
transparent elections, as envisioned under Articles 81
and 86 of the Constitution.
(f) The counting, tallying, transmission and declaration of
election votes and results were efficient, accurate,
accountable, lawful and a true representation of the
will of the people based on universal suffrage and the
statutory violations and irregularities ascribed to the
outcome of various electoral areas for example Webuye
and Nakuru County are non-existent and the allegation
of excess number of votes cast in favor of the Third
Respondent VIS a VIS the registered voters
unsubstantiated.
(g)The petition is premised on a misconception of the
principal register of voters, the tallying process, and
the legal framework, and would therefore not justify the
grant of the prayers sought iIi the petition.
THE QUESTIONS AND ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION IN THE
PETITION
52. The First and Second Respondents invite this Honorable
Court to hold and find that:-
(a)The First and Second Respondents were not in breach
of or contravention of the prOViSions of the
Constitution;
(b) That the electoral process was valid and a valid
declaration of the outcome of the presidential elections
made; and that by no stretch of imagination was the
process 'fundamentally and irreparably flawed,
unconstitutional and unlawful';
(c) The First and Second Respondents committed no
electoral offences;
(d) The Third Respondent was validly elected as the
President of the Republic of Kenya;
( e) The Petitioner should bear the costs of this Petition;
(f) The people of Kenya exercised their sovereign power of
the vote and their decision should be respected.
53. The First and Second Respondents aver that the
declarations sought by the Petitioner are not warranted.
54. Wherefore your 1 st and 2nd Respondents state that the said
Honourable Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta was duly elected and
the election was valid.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS •••• DAY OF
,
-------------------~ ---------------------
MOHAMMED MUIGAI ADVOCATES
ON BEHALF OF THE ADVOCATES FOR THE FIRST & SECOND
RESPONDENTS
DRAWN~BY: / - '/
V.A . Advocates
House No-7
Lower Hill Duplex Apartments
23
'1 ,
Lower Hill Road
P.O. Box 51431-00200
Nairobi
Email: paul@nyamodi.co.ke
Gumbo & Associates
Advocates
5th Floor K.V.D.A Plaza
P.O. Box 2718-30100
Eldoret
Email:gumboadvocates@Yahoo.com
Murugu, Rigoro Company
Advocates
Yaya Court
(Behind Yaya Centre)
P.O Box 13715-00100
Nairobi
Email:murugurigoroadv@yahoo.com
Sisule Munyi Kilonzo and Associates
Advocates
13th Floor Re-Insurance Plaza
P.O. Box 1392-00606
Nairobi
E-mail: info@thesmklawfirm.com
Kimani Muhoro & Co
Advocates
6th Floor, Embassy House
P.O Box 52431-00200
Nairobi
E-mail: kimanimuhoro@Yahoo.com
Muriu Mungai & Co. Advocates
MMC Arches
Spring Valley Crescent
24
, "),
P.O.Box 75362-00200
Nairobi
Email: naani@Wakili.com
A.B. Patel & Patel
Advocates
Oriental Building, 1st Floor,
Nkrumah Road
P.O.Box 80100
Mombasa
Email: law@abp.ateladvocates.com
L.M.Kambuni & Associates,
Advocates,
Muringa Apartments, A9,
Junction of Kirichwa and Muringa Roads, Kilimani
P.O.Box 43520-00100, GPO
Nairobi
Email: lucy@kambuniadv.com
Mohamed and Muigai Advocates
MM Chambers, K-Rep Centre
4 th Floor, Wood Ave Off Lenana Rd
Tel: +254-020-2397401/2/3
Fax: +254-020-2397404
Nairobi
Email: info(illmohammedmuigai.com
Iseme, Kamau & Maema, Advocates
5th Floor, IKM Place
5th Ngong Avenue
Off Bishops Road
Nairobi
Email: info(illikm.co.ke
Ahmednasir, Abdikadir & Co. Advocates
25
CBA Building, Standard Street, 2nd Floor
P.O. Box 57731 00200
Nairobi.
Email: ahmedabdi@ahmedabdi.com
Garane & Associates Advocates
Hughes Building, 14th Floor
Kenyatta Avenue
52189-00100
Nairobi
Email: mursalmahat@gmail.com
TO BE SERVED UPON:-
Oraro& Company Advocates,
ACK Garden House, 3rd Floor,
Wing C,
1 stNgong Avenue,
P.O.BOX. 51236-00200
NAIROBI
|
|
|
|
Post by danielwaweru on Mar 23, 2013 15:23:03 GMT 3
At worst from Raila and Cord's perspective, and 3 of 4 reputable polling firms confirmed from their exit polls--and they have never been wrong in all their prediction and exit polling in Kenya since 2002, neither candidate went over the threshold of 50%+1 to be sworn as president therefore a re-run was what was in order until the rigging crew took over.At best from Raila and Cord's perspective, Raila won and met and surpassed the threshold required to be sworn as president but as noted before in another blog, both Raila and Cord have made a strategic decision not to seek a declaration that they won but are simply seeking a re-run or run-off after the nullification of the bogus announcement by the obviously compromised IEBC that Uhuru won when he, in fact, did not win or even come close.
An IED exit poll in 2007 showed a Kibaki win. The IRI exit poll showed a Raila win. Both can't be right, although both could be wrong. The possible outcomes are Kibaki wins, Raila wins, neither wins. If Kibaki won, then the second one is wrong. If Raila won, then the first exit poll is wrong. If neither Kibaki nor Raila won, then both exit polls are wrong. Whichever was the outcome in 2007, at least one exit poll is wrong. Therefore, your claim that exit polls never get the results wrong in Kenyan elections is false.
I'm with tactician on the evidential merits: the IEBC reply raises grave, possibly fatal, problems for the petitioner's case.
It explains why the petitioner's use of the provisional registration figures (the figures from xii 2012) is unsound. That figure was provisional; it included voters whose registrations had been duplicated, and it didn't include the special list of voters who had had difficulty registering with biometrics.
The reply to the petition explains why there are more voters on the final list than on the provisional list: voters from the special list. It shows that the petitioner knew about this special list. It shows that the petitioner cannot, therefore, rely on calculations based on the provisional list from xii 2012. Those calculations appear to be the basis for the petitioner's case. If they can't be relied on, there isn't much of a case left.
Other of the petitioner's main claims are called into serious doubt. For example, it appears that KenCall hosted the call-centre service, not the server for the IEBC. The results service was actually on an internal, secure VPN. Petitioner had claimed that the IEBC hosted its results on a Kencall server, to which (possibly) the 3rd respondent had access. The IEBC's reply appears to dispose of this charge.
There's a lot more there. I'd strongly encourage everyone to take half the day off, and read both the petition and the IEBC reply carefully. But, going strictly on the basis of the evidence both sides have presented so far, the advantage lies with the IEBC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Omwenga on Mar 23, 2013 15:57:18 GMT 3
At worst from Raila and Cord's perspective, and 3 of 4 reputable polling firms confirmed from their exit polls--and they have never been wrong in all their prediction and exit polling in Kenya since 2002, neither candidate went over the threshold of 50%+1 to be sworn as president therefore a re-run was what was in order until the rigging crew took over.At best from Raila and Cord's perspective, Raila won and met and surpassed the threshold required to be sworn as president but as noted before in another blog, both Raila and Cord have made a strategic decision not to seek a declaration that they won but are simply seeking a re-run or run-off after the nullification of the bogus announcement by the obviously compromised IEBC that Uhuru won when he, in fact, did not win or even come close.
An IED exit poll in 2007 showed a Kibaki win. The IRI exit poll showed a Raila win. Both can't be right, although both could be wrong. The possible outcomes are Kibaki wins, Raila wins, neither wins. If Kibaki won, then the second one is wrong. If Raila won, then the first exit poll is wrong. If neither Kibaki nor Raila won, then both exit polls are wrong. Whichever was the outcome in 2007, at least one exit poll is wrong. Therefore, your claim that exit polls never get the results wrong in Kenyan elections is false.
I'm with tactician on the evidential merits: the IEBC reply raises grave, possibly fatal, problems for the petitioner's case.
It explains why the petitioner's use of the provisional registration figures (the figures from xii 2012) is unsound. That figure was provisional; it included voters whose registrations had been duplicated, and it didn't include the special list of voters who had had difficulty registering with biometrics.
The reply to the petition explains why there are more voters on the final list than on the provisional list: voters from the special list. It shows that the petitioner knew about this special list. It shows that the petitioner cannot, therefore, rely on calculations based on the provisional list from xii 2012. Those calculations appear to be the basis for the petitioner's case. If they can't be relied on, there isn't much of a case left.
Other of the petitioner's main claims are called into serious doubt. For example, it appears that KenCall hosted the call-centre service, not the server for the IEBC. The results service was actually on an internal, secure VPN. Petitioner had claimed that the IEBC hosted its results on a Kencall server, to which (possibly) the 3rd respondent had access. The IEBC's reply appears to dispose of this charge.
There's a lot more there. I'd strongly encourage everyone to take half the day off, and read both the petition and the IEBC reply carefully. But, going strictly on the basis of the evidence both sides have presented so far, the advantage lies with the IEBC.
, Three things: First, when I said the polling firms have never had it wrong in their predictions and exit polling I was not referring to all pollsters but the 4 of which 3 showed a tie between Raila and Uhuru, both under 50% with one outlier showing a slight Raila win over the 50%+1 threshold therefore nothing I said is false. Two, the evidence clearly shows the register was tampered with after the final total number of registered voters was gazetted and IEBC has not provided any reason as to why and they can't because there is no reason that can justify an illegality such as register tampering. Please note cleaning the register is not tampering and nobody has made any issue of that. The Kencall/Uhuru/IEBC connection will be amply demonstrated to have been nothing but part of the scheme to rig. Three, there could not be an easier case to make of rigging than this largely because those involved were too clever by half in some of the stupid mistakes they made as was the case in 2007 such as overcooking numbers to show more voters voting at a polling station than there were registered voters, which there are enough such cases to surpass by tens of thousands the mere 8000 or so needed to be removed from the Uhuru "win" column to overturn the results by law. |
|
