Judge to rule on Aladwa poll petition

July 13, 2013 4:16 pm
Shares

,

Aladwa’s lawyer Cecil Miller wants the High Court to declare the Makadara parliamentary results a sham and order a by-election. CFM.
Aladwa’s lawyer Cecil Miller wants the High Court to declare the Makadara parliamentary results a sham and order a by-election. CFM.
NAIROBI, Kenya, July 13 – Final submissions on an election petition filed by former Nairobi Mayor George Aladwa against Benson Kangara’s election as Makadara MP have been closed and the two are now waiting for the ruling.

Following final submissions on Thursday, Justice Richard Mwongo gave no date for the judgment but did provide that Aladwa and Kangara would be notified in due course when the verdict will be made.

In his final submission through his advocate Cecil Miller, Aladwa said Kangara’s election could not be considered a reflection of the will of Makadara constituents citing alterations to Form 35 which contained the results compiled by the Returning Officer.

Miller contended that the process of entering results into Form 35 was done in the absence of all the party agents and the final tally was not informed by what was captured in Form 36 which contains results from the polling station.

On the basis of this argument, Miller called on the High Court to, “declare the Makadara parliamentary results a sham and order a by-election.”

Kangara’s lawyer Kibe Mungai countered Miller’s argument and maintained that his client had won the Makadara National Assembly seat fair and square.

Kangara denies the allegation that Form 35 was altered and argued that even Forms 36 from his constituency proved that he won the March 4 general election.

“Nothing would turn a loser at the polling station to a winner at the tallying centre because the results were not altered as alleged by the petitioner,” Mungai argued while defending Kangara.

Mungai added that none of the other six candidates had alleged that their votes were stolen “which is clear prove that the elections were free and fair.”

“The petitioner has zero evidence to show that a single vote was stolen from him. On that ground the respondent asks the court to uphold the election of the current Member of Parliament,’’ Mungai said.

The results of all eight candidates, Miller countered, could not be verified as the returning officer did not sign the Form 35 used to declare the winner as required by law.

Shares

Latest Articles

Most Viewed