Here are the details of the IT expert’s evidence from earlier this week:
[ul]
[li]Nearly a third of the results forms have irregularities: B[/B] some are blank, some are B [/B]signed in the same handwriting, some come from Bpolling stations that didn’t officially exist[/B], some B show results that differed from the totals, and from the totals announced by the electoral commission,[/B] and B[/B] thousands lack official stamps, signatures, and watermarks[/li]
[li]Some five million votes, enough to affect the outcome, were not verified[/li]
[li]On examining the electoral commission logs the Supreme Court-appointed team found that numerous unauthorised users had entered the IEBC system before and after the election[/li][/ul]
Maraga is a God fearing man, ule ni highly likely alikuwa compromised ni Njoki Ndungu. She was having drinks with Jubilee National Vice Chairman David Murathe while the presidential petition was still in the courts
As I said, the judges did not follow the ‘Letter of the Law’.
1 and 2. No Form 34B was blank. The only irregularity strictly according to the law is lack of RO signatures.
3. Polling station that didn’t exist was a falsehood by Nasa. Only 1 polling station was not gazetted as it was created by a court case after. What nasa meant was 11,000 polling stations that were not listed in the 3G/4G list.
4. The total results presented by nasa lawyers that differed from what IEBC presented amounted to 822 votes. Mostly it was wrong arithmetic or officers mistakenly filling Raila on the wrong line.
5. Only 5 Form 34Bs lacked signatures. Again, stamps and watermarks are not recognized in law. These 5 couldn’t change the final arithmetic.
6. The 5 million votes are inclusive of Form 34Bs without stamps and watermarks. If you stick to what the law says, you are left with about 200,000 ‘unverified’ votes.
7. I’ve seen the said logs, and the only way to know who was ‘unauthorized’ is by having a list from IEBC to compare with. But I believe every presiding officer had to log in to input the results.
That said, the computer servers had no bearing to the final results. The final results were simply based on the manual addition of Form 34Bs.
My belief is that the judges did not follow the ‘letter of the law’. But it’s common for Supreme Court judges world wide to make political/social decisions not guided by the law. In any case, they can make a law on the go.
That’s why even in the US there is intense lobbying as to who holds a Supreme Court sit, and what their beliefs are.
Hii propaganda umetoa wapi? 1-7 - Nobody has been able to scrutinize presidential results from the 40,000 poling stations, therefore statements like “total results presented by nasa lawyers that differed from what IEBC presented amounted to 822 votes” are false.
The supreme court has stated that they examined around 4000 forms, it seems like most of the errors made are in the from 34As, as a result although most of the form 34Bs were legit and signed correctly they contained errors and cooked results from the form 34As.
Let us wait for the Supreme court to give us more details tuchambue hizi errors
A quick one, with your brilliance, why were you not appointed to the supreme court? Heck, why doesn’t your village headman or even your nyumba kumi chairman consult you?
They tabulated a summary which amounted to 822. Kwani hukuwa unaskiza kesi?
I’m sure if they had more significant numbers, it would have been their number one presentation in the whole case.
Cooked results? Every party agent was given a copy of Form 34A. Why didn’t Nasa produce a single one that differed from what was eventually announced. You can’t tell me they didn’t have even a single agent on the ground.
The only logical conclusion is that what their agents gave them matched what IEBC eventually announced. Which would have made producing such forms damaging to Nasa’s case.
Nobody including NASA has been able to analyze the presidential results from all the 40,883 polling stations, all that all sides have done isanalyzed a sample of the results. The supreme court was only able to look at a random sample of around 4000 polling stations.
That`s is why I am saying your argument of 822 votes is neither here nor there.
Clearly you did not follow the case. The 822 number did not come out of thin air.
But even if I was to work with your view, out of those 4000 forms that were analyzed, how many had arithmetic differences to what was eventually announced, or what Nasa agents had provided? I’m pretty sure none or just a few. Even if you multiply that by 10 since we’re dealing with random sampling, Raila would have barely moved 0.01%.
What was been debated was watermarks, security features, signatures and other administrative issues.
Clearly this was not an issue about the results. It was about technicalities.
Nasa would have won this convincingly had they provided Form 34As issued by their own agents, and showed them differing with what IEBC announced. And not just 3 forms, but a substantial number to show a deliberate act to subdue the will of the people.
What I am saying in simpler words is the highest court in Kenya looked at the evidence and were able to determine that according to our constitution there were irregularities and illegalities and as a result they nullified the election results ([SIZE=5]4 -2 [/SIZE]). Their decision is final and we cannot do anything to change it.
Hizo argument zingine are only speculative and do not mean anything since each judge made their decision independently and according to our laws, so let us wait for supreme court to give us more information on why the election results were nullified.
Of small things the law knows no cure. The judges went against this rule.
Of course in an exercise involving over 100,000 officials and agents, there will be irregularities.
But the wisdom of looking at the bigger picture should prevail.
According to me, the best judgement should have been based on whether Nasa was able to prove there was stealing of votes in a massive scale. If Nasa failed to do this, nothing then stopped the judges to make certain rulings to strengthen the process. e.g they could have made the watermarks and security features a requirement, or even cemented the place of transmission of results.
I’ll not pre-empt what their comprehensive rulings will say, but in my view, what the Supreme Court did is just call for a new election with exactly the same conditions as before.
We can debate here all we want, but IMHO, let us learn from the mistakes observed. We have 60 days to correct whatever the contention was.
A quick summary of my thoughts:
Can we transmit & display in realtime, the results of the runoff?
Can the party agents be present at all the polling stations and centers. On this, why can’t the agents takes pictures of the forms tharee four bae for their respective clients?
In as much as there was a petition and determination, we as Kenyans are faced with a precedence, one that will have an effect in future elections.
The petitioner still has a nightmare of 1.4m ballots to cover ground, or else, an opposition that is the majority in ALL houses.
