Anxiety mounts as Chebukati holds on secretariat’s response to controversial memo to Chiloba

IEBC chairman Wafula Chebukati (right) with CEO Ezra Chiloba (left) flanked by commissioners addressing the press at Great Rift Valley Lodge in Naivasha ,Nakuru county on September 11,2017 after their retreat. [Photo:Kipsang Joseph/Standard]

The mystery of responses to the memo by the electoral commission chair Wafula Chebukati deepened on friday even as it emerged that he may have perjured himself to the Supreme Court through the same.

The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) secretariat handed over the responses to Chebukati last Sunday.

Sources within the commission say the chairman was confronted with not only the responses but was also referred to his own affidavit to the Supreme Court for answers.

In a sworn affidavit delivered to the Supreme Court on August 24, Chebukati spoke to the truth and unquestionability of most of the issues raised in the memo.

“The responses were delivered to him on Sunday in strict accordance to commission rules and workings and without leaks. The question of when to release them is in his domain,” an insider at the commission told the Saturday Standard.

In the memo which widened the rift between Chebukati and CEO Ezra Chiloba, the chair raised twelve queries on the conduct and execution of the August vote.

Satellite phones

They included why the CEO failed to appreciate the grave indictment of the commission by the court, why security features were missing on some election materials and why election results scanners failed on election day.

The chair also wanted to know why satellite phones purchased at cost of Sh848 million failed to work and why his password was used to make fraudulent transactions.

He also demanded to know what went wrong with results transmission, why 595 polling stations failed to send results, why the commission opted for a “porous server” and why proper mapping of mobile network coverage was not done.

Chebukati wanted Chiloba to explain why many voters were allowed to vote manually, the puzzling case of number of rejected votes in 682 polling stations corresponding to the total number of total registered voters in those stations and why certain technological features of the transmission system were switched off two days before the poll.

“His staff say they have already provided explanation for each... They have responded to the commission internally as they should. We shouldn’t be treated to this. This is an internal IEBC matter but it has been brought to the public to support election-tampering claims,” Deputy President William Ruto also said during an interview with Citizen TV on Sunday.

Our inquiries to Chebukati on when or whether he will release the responses went unanswered.

According to insiders however, the responses are said to have borrowed from the chair’s own script to the Supreme Court and which talked of an election conducted in line with the Constitution, the IEBC Act, IEBC Regulations and other relevant laws.

In his interview, Ruto also alluded to a similar line of responses when he said the same issues had been dealt with at the commission before.

“The process of relay and transmission of results from the polling stations to the constituency and National Tallying Centre (NTC), and from the constituency tallying centre to the NTC was simple, accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable, transparent, open and prompt. This process secured a free and fair election as required by Article 81 (e) (iv) and (v) of the Constitution,” Chebukati’s affidavit to Supreme Court stated.

On the issue of scans, the chair had told the court “all polling stations transmitted the statistics of the results through KIEMS accompanied by the electronic image of Forms 34A.”

He said it was dependent on availability of 3G or 4G network coverage.

“In respect of areas lacking 3G or 4G network coverage, the commission established alternative mechanisms to ensure completion in transmission of the image of the Form 34A,” Chebukati said in his affidavit alluding to use of satellite phones in relaying results.

On the issue of failure to relay presidential results in some areas, Chebukati had told the Supreme Court that at the time of the declaration of the results of the presidential election, the commission had in their possession “all the forms required in law for purposes of a declaration of the results of the presidential election.”

On fears of infiltration of servers, unauthorised use of passwords and deliberate interference with outcome, the chairman had equally denounced these in the affidavit.

He said any discrepancies in statistics entered on transmission kits must have been a result of “inadvertent human error.”

“The presidential election was conducted in an impartial, neutral, efficient, accurate and accountable manner in accordance with Article 81(e) of the Constitution,” Chebukati stated.

Section 108 of the Penal Code says “any person, who in any judicial proceeding, or for the purpose of instituting any judicial proceeding, knowingly gives false testimony touching any matter which is material to any question then pending in that proceeding or intended to be raised in that proceeding, is guilty of... perjury.”