It's Official Raila Will Go Down in History as 5 Time Presidential Loser

#1
Today's judgement served two purpose.
1. It shows our judiciary (at least the Supreme Court) is independent of the Executive.
2. It will finally confirm Raila's fifth presidential loss.
1997, 2007, 2013, 2017 twice.

I always felt 4 was an 'odd' number to retire at.
One thing Maraga made clear was their judgement was guided by the fact that an election is a 'process' not an event.
In other words, they did not see any problem with the numbers in results, but felt that some aspects were ignored or not free or fair.
Actually, this has been Nasa's argument all along. No one doubted the numbers on the Form 34As and Bs. They just cited lack of watermarks or signatures.

In 2 months, Uhuru's win will be confirmed again. Of course Raila will cry foul again, but I don't think he can go to the Supreme Court after that.

In conclusion, Raila, whether he means well for the country or just fights for his own power, has given us a big leap in democracy.
But he will never be the beneficiary of this. Not in the way he would want anyway.
 
#2
Today's judgement served two purpose.
1. It shows our judiciary (at least the Supreme Court) is independent of the Executive.
2. It will finally confirm Raila's fifth presidential loss.
1997, 2007, 2013, 2017 twice.

I always felt 4 was an 'odd' number to retire at.
One thing Maraga made clear was their judgement was guided by the fact that an election is a 'process' not an event.
In other words, they did not see any problem with the numbers in results, but felt that some aspects were ignored or not free or fair.
Actually, this has been Nasa's argument all along. No one doubted the numbers on the Form 34As and Bs. They just cited lack of watermarks or signatures.

In 2 months, Uhuru's win will be confirmed again. Of course Raila will cry foul again, but I don't think he can go to the Supreme Court after that.

In conclusion, Raila, whether he means well for the country or just fights for his own power, has given us a big leap in democracy.
But he will never be the beneficiary of this. Not in the way he would want anyway.
This is a win for Kenya and not for Raila. IEBC should take Kenyans seriously. Why did they spend all those billions just to conduct a sham election? If everything was above board, the Court would not have ruled in favour of a repeat of the election.
 

Koolibah

Village Sponsor
#4
Today's judgement served two purpose.
1. It shows our judiciary (at least the Supreme Court) is independent of the Executive.
2. It will finally confirm Raila's fifth presidential loss.
1997, 2007, 2013, 2017 twice.

I always felt 4 was an 'odd' number to retire at.
One thing Maraga made clear was their judgement was guided by the fact that an election is a 'process' not an event.
In other words, they did not see any problem with the numbers in results, but felt that some aspects were ignored or not free or fair.
Actually, this has been Nasa's argument all along. No one doubted the numbers on the Form 34As and Bs. They just cited lack of watermarks or signatures.

In 2 months, Uhuru's win will be confirmed again. Of course Raila will cry foul again, but I don't think he can go to the Supreme Court after that.

In conclusion, Raila, whether he means well for the country or just fights for his own power, has given us a big leap in democracy.
But he will never be the beneficiary of this. Not in the way he would want anyway.
Pewa mbili
 
#6
consolations ndio zenu. a few hours ago you were saying supreme court will never nullify election. we are in era of firsts. Ngoja mtashangaa
A few weeks ago you were saying Meru is Nasa, Half of Rift Valley is Nasa.. How did that turn out?
A few weeks ago you were saying IEBC 'MsSQL' database was hacked. Even providing a 50 page log file.
A few weeks ago you were saying Raila is ahead in the server. Orengo swept that under the carpet after the server was opened.

Supreme Court activism will in no way change the numerical reality on the ground.
 

Kimutikk

Village Elder
#7
Today's judgement served two purpose.
1. It shows our judiciary (at least the Supreme Court) is independent of the Executive.
2. It will finally confirm Raila's fifth presidential loss.
1997, 2007, 2013, 2017 twice.

I always felt 4 was an 'odd' number to retire at.
One thing Maraga made clear was their judgement was guided by the fact that an election is a 'process' not an event.
In other words, they did not see any problem with the numbers in results, but felt that some aspects were ignored or not free or fair.
Actually, this has been Nasa's argument all along. No one doubted the numbers on the Form 34As and Bs. They just cited lack of watermarks or signatures.

In 2 months, Uhuru's win will be confirmed again. Of course Raila will cry foul again, but I don't think he can go to the Supreme Court after that.

In conclusion, Raila, whether he means well for the country or just fights for his own power, has given us a big leap in democracy.
But he will never be the beneficiary of this. Not in the way he would want anyway.
Ongeza zangu mbili
 
#11
This is a win for Kenya and not for Raila. IEBC should take Kenyans seriously. Why did they spend all those billions just to conduct a sham election? If everything was above board, the Court would not have ruled in favour of a repeat of the election.
I disagree with the reasons thus far given by the Supreme Court. That because of some technicalities in the process, like missing signatures or not well visible watermarks, the entire process be repeated.
They clearly did not follow the letter of the law, which only requires signatures on the forms and doesn't talk of transmission. But as they said, election is a process not an event.
But I think its a good political decision. As you might have noticed, the secession messages have stopped. If Uhuru's re-election was upheld, a dangerously high number of Kenyans would still have believed Raila's victory was stolen. (Even though political party performance throughout the country show otherwise).
Now, in 2 months, I believe Uhuru will win again by a greater margin. But Raila will still cry foul. The difference is at that point, only the most brainwashed will believe him.
 
#13
I disagree with the reasons thus far given by the Supreme Court. That because of some technicalities in the process, like missing signatures or not well visible watermarks, the entire process be repeated.
They clearly did not follow the letter of the law, which only requires signatures on the forms and doesn't talk of transmission. But as they said, election is a process not an event.
But I think its a good political decision. As you might have noticed, the secession messages have stopped. If Uhuru's re-election was upheld, a dangerously high number of Kenyans would still have believed Raila's victory was stolen. (Even though political party performance throughout the country show otherwise).
Now, in 2 months, I believe Uhuru will win again by a greater margin. But Raila will still cry foul. The difference is at that point, only the most brainwashed will believe him.
From the submissions made by Pheroze Nowrejee, my opinion is that the conduct of the elections was not transparent. IEBC messed this one up. If they had been faithful to the law, this petition would not have been nullified. I'm actually surprised that there were two dissenting opinions. Whoever sabotaged IEBC should be brought to book; a big part of the 44 billion has gone to waste. We are not that rich as a country.
 
#14
From the submissions made by Pheroze Nowrejee, my opinion is that the conduct of the elections was not transparent. IEBC messed this one up. If they had been faithful to the law, this petition would not have been nullified. I'm actually surprised that there were two dissenting opinions. Whoever sabotaged IEBC should be brought to book; a big part of the 44 billion has gone to waste. We are not that rich as a country.
Dealing with over 50,000 officials and you expect things to run smoothly all through?
Such a huge judgement, in my opinion, should have been guided by the bigger picture. Aside from the technicalities, did Nasa manage to show any widespread alteration of results, even at the polling station level? The judges should have compelled them to release the forms they got from their agents, which they should have in the first place.
If polling station A shows Raila got 500, but IEBC announced 100, Orengo could not have hesitated to produce these forms. But the 5 or so they produced were insignificant in the big pool of over 40,000 stations.
And you can't tell me they didn't have agents at all stations.

Nothing prevented the judges from then issuing new guidelines to tighten up the process for future elections.
 
#16
Dealing with over 50,000 officials and you expect things to run smoothly all through?
Such a huge judgement, in my opinion, should have been guided by the bigger picture. Aside from the technicalities, did Nasa manage to show any widespread alteration of results, even at the polling station level? The judges should have compelled them to release the forms they got from their agents, which they should have in the first place.
If polling station A shows Raila got 500, but IEBC announced 100, Orengo could not have hesitated to produce these forms. But the 5 or so they produced were insignificant in the big pool of over 40,000 stations.
And you can't tell me they didn't have agents at all stations.

Nothing prevented the judges from then issuing new guidelines to tighten up the process for future elections.
If you get time, please look at the submissions by Otiende Amollo and Nowrejee on the issue of form 34 As. In my opinion, they shifted the burden of proving that the elections were not credible from Raila to the IEBC.IEBC did not even bother to prove that and even if they did it, their conduct showed that there was no transparency. On the day of announcing the results, IEBC did not have all the forms, they supplied Raila with about 30,000 forms and said that they did not have about 10,000 forms. Later, on 14th they said they still did not have the remaining 10,000 forms. Pheroze also castigated IEBC for releasing the ORIGINAL forms to Raila, under law they should not have done that. Under the law they shoWhich raised the question, did IEBC verify the results?
 
Top