Video evidence shows glaring flaws in poll

March 27, 2013 2:44 pm
Shares

,

The video clips, lawyer Kethi Kilonzo argued, showed discrepancies in presidential election results that were announced by Returning Officers in Nyeri, Othaya, Kieni and Makueni among others/ALI ALALE
The video clips, lawyer Kethi Kilonzo argued, showed discrepancies in presidential election results that were announced by Returning Officers in Nyeri, Othaya, Kieni and Makueni among others/ALI ALALE
NAIROBI, Kenya, Mar 27 – A lawyer for The Africa Centre for Open Governance (AFRICOG) on Wednesday presented video evidence at the Supreme Court to challenge the validity of the March 4 electoral process.

The video clips, lawyer Kethi Kilonzo argued, showed discrepancies in presidential election results that were announced by Returning Officers in Nyeri, Othaya, Kieni and Makueni among others.

“In Makueni there are 64,708 voters but according to Form 36 there were 64,525 voters. Form 34 for Charity Primary School in Kieni shows votes cast 321 and the president-elect got 310. The registered number of voters in 100 polling stations shows different figures from those on Form 36. We can’t talk of free and fair,” she told the court.

She claimed that president-elect Uhuru Kenyatta’s results were increased while results of other presidential candidates were reduced.

“The results were altered; it was daylight theft! When Nyeri results had been announced there were 1,000 plus more votes. Only Peter Kenneth and Kenyatta got the votes. Though the discrepancies may be few in the constituencies, when multiplied by 290 they are significant,” she contended.

Kilonzo said the Director of Public Prosecutions should in fact order investigations of the people who altered the results.

“The DPP should be present because these offences are criminal. The friend of the court here today should have been the Director of Public Prosecution, because my Lord this is an offence and fraud. The people who altered those results must be arrested and prosecuted in the most public manner possible,” she urged.

“The process of election is what is in question and the standard of the election is what should be tested. The election must be accurate (and) results must be promptly announced by returning and tallying officers,” she argued.

Kilonzo questioned why the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) failed to release the results within 48 hours as it had indicated before the March 4 General Election.

She claimed that IEBC further used multiple voters’ registers making it complicated to know who the actual voters were.

“We had too many registers. Why do we have different number of voters? There can only be one register. How can you verify the number of people entitled to vote in the presidential election? According to the principal register there are 14,352 533. If one person outside this was allowed to vote the process was flawed. The number of voters in Form 36 was 13,557,365 making a difference of close to a million voters. The forms before you do not reflect the results announced in the counties,” she continued.

She tasked IEBC to explain why there were differences and pointed out that only if there was a case pending in court that IEBC would be allowed to alter the voters’ register.

“The register could only be amended if there were appeals pending at the time of registration,” she told the court before interruption by President-elect Uhuru Kenyatta’s lawyer Fred Ngatia.

Kilonzo who confidently directed him to sit down since it was the petitioners’ day in court went on to argue her case as she tore into the process of the election conducted by IEBC.

She accused the commission of failing to conduct an election that could meet the threshold of international standards in view that the Electronic Voter Identification devices and results transmission system failed by more than half.

“Fifty five percent is substantial failure. In a credible law school if you score less than 44 percent, you’ll get a ‘D’,” she told the six-judge bench.

Based on arguments in the discrepancies of total number of voters, irregularities between total presidential results at the polling and tallying centres as well as delay in release of the presidential results, Kilonzo asked the court to declare the presidential results invalid since the process was flawed.

“An election that meets such irregularities does not pass the test of validity,” she said.

Shares

Latest Articles

Most Viewed