I have gone through the ruling of the 2013 presidential petition and there is a lot some can learn from there. Of interest to me were three items:
[ol]
[li]Where a party alleges non-conformity with the electoral law, the petitioner must not only prove that there has been noncompliance with the law, but that such failure of compliance did affect the validity of the elections. It is on that basis that the respondent bears the burden of proving the contrary.[/li][li]IEBC is a constitutional entity entrusted with specified obligations, to organize, manage and conduct elections, designed to give fulfillment to the people’s political rights [Article 38 of the Constitution]. The execution of such a mandate is underpinned by specified constitutional principles and mechanisms, and by detailed provisions of the statute law. While it is conceivable that the law of elections can be infringed, especially through incompetence, malpractices or fraud attributable to the responsible agency, it behoves the person who thus alleges, to produce the necessary evidence in the first place – and thereafter, the evidential burden shifts, and keeps shifting.[/li][li]The Supreme Court cannot roll over the defined range of the electoral process like a colossus. The Court must take care not to usurp the jurisdiction of the lower Courts in electoral disputes. It follows that the annulment of a Presidential election will not necessarily vitiate the entire general election. And the annulment of a Presidential election need not occasion a constitutional crisis, as the authority to declare a Presidential election invalid is granted by the Constitution itself.[/li][/ol]
teremteremterem…
You are good, Sir!
In other news, this year’s elections are said to have been so flawless such that akina Wakili kama wewe, @kwido, wanalia mwani vile hakuna petitions makortini! Poleni sana!