NAIROBI, Kenya, Aug 25 – President Uhuru Kenyatta and the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission on Thursday night filed their responses to the presidential election petition Raila Odinga and Kalonzo Musyoka filed last Friday.
President Uhuru Kenyatta’s legal team which comprises Fred Ngatia, Evans Monari and Ahmednasir Abdullahi as well as Kimani Kiragu filed their response and several replying affidavits that include the president’s, those of Davis Chirchir and Winnie Guchu who acted as the ruling Jubilee Party’s Chief Agents and those of experts whose written testimony is intended to counter that of Odinga and Musyoka’s own expert testimony.
“The approach was to take each of their affidavits, dissect them, take professional advice from experts as necessary, prepare a response to eache affidavit and the response to the petition,” a source privy to the defence told Capital FM News.
In his affidavit, President Kenyatta has included several graphics to demonstrate how unlikely it is he lost the presidential election.
He makes the case that Jubilee not only secured the presidency but a majority of the gubernatorial, senatorial and National Assembly seats.
He also presented as evidence of his popularity the fact that he received over 25 per cent of presidential vote in 29 counties.
Chirchir and Guchu on the other hand have testified to the fairness and transparency of the process including the reliability of the now famous Form 34Bs which capture the constituency presidential election result.
They’ve also testified that where there are discrepancies, they are attributable to human error and would not significantly alter the outcome.
Their expert testimony on the other hand, counters that which was presented by Odinga and Kalonzo’s ICT and Cyber Security experts.
The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission in its response to the petition, argues that it is “couched in vagueness, generalities and misconceptions.”
It also makes the case that it complied with the Constitution, all relevant electoral laws and the interpretation of the law as pronounced by the courts.
Any discrepancies in the forms it handed over to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, IEBC submits, are attributable to human error in transmission and “didn’t materially affect the results.”
The delays in the receipt of some scanned copies of the Form 34Bs, from the constituencies, they’ve attributed to the large file sizes and poor internet connectivity; not as suggested in Odinga and Kalonzo’s filings, to allow for the cooking of figures.
The IEBC also submits that Odinga and Kalonzo’s claims that the IEBC systems were hacked have no bearing on the final result as the declaration was based not on the numbers relayed on the portal but the actual form 34Bs which were filled in, in the presence of all party agents who were encouraged to take copies after registering, on the forms, their witness.
“Numbers relayed to the portal were statistics and not results. Any variances did not affect the results. Results in Forms 34B tally with 34A.”