Supreme Court nullifies Uhuru’s re-election

Nairobi, Kenya: The Supreme Court has nullified President Uhuru Kenyatta's re-election and ordered a fresh presidential poll; two judges dissented while four upheld Raila’s petition.

CJ David Maraga says the IEBC committed various illegalities affecting the integrity of the polls.

The six-judge bench upheld a petition filed by NASA Presidential candidate Raila Odinga and his running mate Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka on August 18, 2017.

In a split decision, CJ Maraga, his deputy Philemena Mwilu, Judges Smokin  Wanjala, Isaac Lenaola, upheld the petition on  the grounds that the election had not been conducted in accordance with the Constitution. Judge Njoki Ndung’u and Jackton Ojwang’ dissented. 

The next election must be held within 60 days.

Justice David Maraga said they would issue the full judgement in 21 days explaining that it was not humanly possible to write one in the few days they had to do.

The Chief justice however let dissenting judges Njoki Ndung’u and Jackton Ojwang’ to read their judgments.

Judge Mohamed Ibrahim who is hospitalised did not render his judgement.

Uhuru lawyer Ahamednassir Abdulahi called the verdict 'political' insisting that insisting that it did not reflect the will of the Kenyans who voted for Uhuru.

Murang’a  Senator Irungu Kanga’ta  (Jubilee)  said the judgment was not good at all.

Raila Odinga’s case was that:

• IEBC chairman Wafula Chebukati announced the final presidential result without 11,000forms 34A and that some of the forms were submitted were forgeries.
• Election was not conducted in accordance with the Constitution and the Election Act, including having party agents to sign result forms
• President Uhuru Kenyatta violated the Elections Act by threatening public officers and Cabinet secretaries to campaign for him
• IEBC used ungazetted polling stations and returning officers during the elections
• IEBC did not comply with the provisions of the (Technology) Regulation 10 of 2017, questioning whether the elections were fully electronic.

In a robust defence, Uhuru’s counsel submitted that:

• IEBC followed the law and used Forms 34B to announce the winner; that the petitioner did not demonstrate discrepancies in figures to warrant annulling the vote.
• All party agents  signed  the forms and there was no proof to show they were forged and that the election  complied with the Constitution and the sovereign will of the people prevailed
• President Uhuru Kenyatta told Chiefs they cannot engage in campaigns as they were public officers. That was not a threat. Cabinet secretaries are political appointees and not public officers and can engage in campaigns
• Technology was just to aid manual voting and that claims  of an algorithm  to generate results was fiction

  Raila Odinga’s case was that:

• IEBC chairman Wafula Chebukati announced the final presidential result without 11,000forms 34A and that some of the forms were submitted were forgeries.
• Election was not conducted in accordance with the Constitution and the Election Act, including having party agents to sign result forms
• President Uhuru Kenyatta violated the Elections Act by threatening public officers and Cabinet secretaries to campaign for him
• IEBC used ungazetted polling stations and returning officers during the elections
• IEBC did not comply with the provisions of the (Technology) Regulation 10 of 2017, questioning whether the elections were fully electronic.

• In a robust defence, Uhuru’s counsel submitted that:

• IEBC followed the law and used Forms 34B to announce the winner; that the petitioner did not demonstrate discrepancies in figures to warrant annulling the vote.
• All party agents  signed  the forms and there was no proof to show they were forged and that the election  complied with the Constitution and the sovereign will of the people prevailed
• President Uhuru Kenyatta told Chiefs they cannot engage in campaigns as they were public officers. That was not a threat. Cabinet secretaries are political appointees and not public officers and can engage in campaigns
• Technology was just to aid manual voting and that claims  of an algorithm  to generate results was fiction.