NASA PETITION AFFIDAVITS

kwido

Village Elder
#1
I have perused some of the affidavits that NASA has submitted to prop their petition, Of Interest is the lengthy petition by DR. NYANGASI ODUWO who is a medical doctor by Profession, has a Post-Graduate Diploma in Research Methods, a Masters in Project Management and Planning and a Second Masters in Economic Policy and Analysis. He is also the current economic advisor to the current Governor of Mombasa County Government.

From this affidavit, i can confirm that some things he has alluded to are true: there is addition or subtraction of 1 or 2 votes from or into the tally of the two major candidates.
Of my interest are the final statements which i copy paste below:


1. THAT the 3rd Respondents and the Deputy President being contestants in the presidential elections are guilty of corruptly influencing voters in the lead up to the 8th August 2017 general elections without punishment and/or as much as a warning from the 1st Respondent. Particulars of instances of undue influence, inducement, bribery and intimidation are as follows:

2. THAT on 2nd August 2017 while campaigning in the County of Makueni, the 2nd Respondent while addressing residents of Makueni during campaign rallies openly threatened chiefs he complained were not actively campaigning for him with sacking upon his re-election!

3. THAT despite clear and express provisions of section 16 of the Public Officer Ethics Act that require them to be apolitical, the cabinet secretaries actively and openly abused their offices and state resources to actively solicit for votes and or further the political interests of the 3rd Respondent with his open complicity and connivance. In some cases, the said cabinet secretaries openly declared and sought support for the 3rd Respondent, sometimes accompanied by threats and intimidation.

4. THAT under the guise of launching official state projects and paying reparations to victims of the 2007 post-election violence in various parts of the country the 3rd Respondents used the same platforms to canvass for votes for personal political gain in the said electoral areas contrary to the Election offences Act.

5. THAT the 3rd Respondent brazenly violated section 14 of the Elections Act by actively causing to be published and advertised in the print and electronic media and in banners and billboards articles disguised as the government’s achievements for his campaigns.

6. THAT in a country like Kenya 44% of the population lives below poverty lines and 38.5 per cent of the adult population is illiterate, it is certain a substantial number of voters were influenced by improper considerations and/or representations by the 3rd Respondent through use of public resources.
 

kwido

Village Elder
#6
See, they are sure of failing at SC an that's why they have said they wont accept the SC ruling.....I wonder then, why did they have to submit a petition? They would have continued with the 'vifaranga vya kompyuta' narrative and continue with the demonstration.
 
#11
I have perused some of the affidavits that NASA has submitted to prop their petition, Of Interest is the lengthy petition by DR. NYANGASI ODUWO who is a medical doctor by Profession, has a Post-Graduate Diploma in Research Methods, a Masters in Project Management and Planning and a Second Masters in Economic Policy and Analysis. He is also the current economic advisor to the current Governor of Mombasa County Government.

From this affidavit, i can confirm that some things he has alluded to are true: there is addition or subtraction of 1 or 2 votes from or into the tally of the two major candidates.
Of my interest are the final statements which i copy paste below:


1. THAT the 3rd Respondents and the Deputy President being contestants in the presidential elections are guilty of corruptly influencing voters in the lead up to the 8th August 2017 general elections without punishment and/or as much as a warning from the 1st Respondent. Particulars of instances of undue influence, inducement, bribery and intimidation are as follows:

2. THAT on 2nd August 2017 while campaigning in the County of Makueni, the 2nd Respondent while addressing residents of Makueni during campaign rallies openly threatened chiefs he complained were not actively campaigning for him with sacking upon his re-election!

3. THAT despite clear and express provisions of section 16 of the Public Officer Ethics Act that require them to be apolitical, the cabinet secretaries actively and openly abused their offices and state resources to actively solicit for votes and or further the political interests of the 3rd Respondent with his open complicity and connivance. In some cases, the said cabinet secretaries openly declared and sought support for the 3rd Respondent, sometimes accompanied by threats and intimidation.

4. THAT under the guise of launching official state projects and paying reparations to victims of the 2007 post-election violence in various parts of the country the 3rd Respondents used the same platforms to canvass for votes for personal political gain in the said electoral areas contrary to the Election offences Act.

5. THAT the 3rd Respondent brazenly violated section 14 of the Elections Act by actively causing to be published and advertised in the print and electronic media and in banners and billboards articles disguised as the government’s achievements for his campaigns.

6. THAT in a country like Kenya 44% of the population lives below poverty lines and 38.5 per cent of the adult population is illiterate, it is certain a substantial number of voters were influenced by improper considerations and/or representations by the 3rd Respondent through use of public resources.
Let me how I am going to deconstruct this..
Uh(1).jpg
 

Amused

Village Elder
#15
Needless to say and as you have been told above, that's a very, very weak argument. What you are doing is using your personal bias and emotion to decide the evidence points to a crime. You will find him guilty 100% of the time. Wait for the other side and then judge which side makes more sense .
 
Last edited:
#20
6. THAT in a country like Kenya 44% of the population lives below poverty lines and 38.5 per cent of the adult population is illiterate, it is certain a substantial number of voters were influenced by improper considerations and/or representations by the 3rd Respondent through use of public resources.
Is it a coincidence that 44% of the country voted for the plaintiff?
 

Top