remember vile DCJ alitolewa mbio just because of pinching someone’s nose…
2 Likes
What people are failing to grasp is that the decision of the Supreme Court does not have to factor in who it will inconvenience. It makes decisions based on the law and legality. The person whose blood you should all be baying for is Chebukati and the IEBC personnel. The judgment was against them, not against Uhuru or for NASA.
Also the 2013 case sought to challenge the validity of the +8,000 votes which pushed uhuru over the 50% line. This one was framed entirely differently
1 Like
Going by your argument, they should have ordered a recount since the results announced at the constituency level was final. Just tally the 291 constituencies and let the numbers speak. What use is then to campaign if the will of numbers is secondary to the process. Do you realise the travesty to justice committed when the cardinal rule in a contest is reduced to what watermark was grey or what paper was what grams in weight
3 Likes
There was no petition seeking a recount. Had IEBC or NASA or Jubilee included this in any of their petitions,then the Judges would have passed a judgment on that. They cannot order for something that was not being sought. That is like a judge asking couples seeking a divorce to go back to their honeymoon destination instead of either granting or refusing to grant the divorce sought. The law is an ass.
Had Jubilee foreseen this, they would have included a petition seeking for a recount. That would have given them a fall-back plan. NASA sought for an annulment. They got it.
The way a case is framed matters a lot. Orengo must have drawn lessons from 2013.
The other two teams of lawyers will just have to agree they were outsmarted
Nothing close to a civil war or secession. If the next election is held peacefully and in accordance to the law Kenya will gain billions.
Your analogy is weird. Going by it anyway, are the results of a flawed process valid just because they are results? Why prescribe a process if all that matters are the ends and not the means?
1 Like
No it doesn’t invalidate your performance.
But what if some sections of your paper were unmarked by the examiner, your examination number was erroneous, the numbering of your work seems inconsistent. Your handwriting in some sections is not legible…add to the fact that the exam paper had no watermark and you didn’t sign the exam attendance register? Surely you have to accept a resit. It’s the only fair thing
1 Like
IEBC should have done a decent job, they committed too many errors at once, these errors seemed to have affected even the voting itself. Hapa solution ni kupatana kwa debe tu. And then a subsequent court case as usual… and if similar errors appear the court will be forced to arrive at the same verdict and then another election in January 2018.
1 Like
Good argument over here
@Kasighau , Uhuru has just backed up my above statement on live tv! lazima tudeal na kangaroo courts.
1 Like
If UK wins fhe the seat Maraga will be haunted until he resigns
IEBC should just get this damn election right. Paperwork and all that. And I think it would be prudent if the Presidential vote is detached from the others and be held on a separate date.
The said court appointed IT expert seems to have had a very big influence on the case, and as has been mentioned above the respondent lawyers seems to have slept on their job when it came to this part, this was literary introducing new evidence in the middle or rather toward the end of a case, I thought they should have fought more against that, or if given they should have sought to be given more time to respond to the same.
I will not be surprised if that report forms good chunk of the final ruling, which is an interesting angle in such a case is the court allowed to introduce its own evidence or should it depend on what is presented by the petitioner.
2 Likes
One of the challenge for iebc is that you are literary dealing with 2 entities, the Secretariat and the commissioners, then you have that part where the are not allowed to alter the results, you can see the chairman has a big problem, if he receives a form that has issues does he alter it, refuse to include it in the total tally, which amounts to altering the results.
I am sure the problem will appear again, where either the constituency RO or the chairman will receive defective forms, what do they do, if they accept the same in their tally the court will rule it as an irregularity, and if they don’t the court will rule it as an illegality.
But the final ruling will shed more light, and I think chebukati will play strictly to that ruling, and throw the ball back to the judicially, one has to remember that the latter had a part in creating the confusion with the rulings they made toward the election
Ndugu, the supreme court is composed of seasoned legal minds with experienced advisors. Whereas to err is human, I am unable to buy your line of reasoning. I highly doubt the learned judges could make such elementary mistakes as you suggest.
Of course the legal mind at the court are some of the best, and I don’t claim to be their equal or even near that, but at the end of the day a forum such as this is just a place where we share our minds, if we all say that there are experts who know what they are doing everytime then we will never discuss any issue.
That said you have to remember that the court allowed introduction of evidence by the petitioner past the time frames given in law, would you call that elementary, I think there is always some leeway given to a judge to also consider a ‘greater good’ now I think thats where differing opinions come in.