NAIROBI (Xinhua) --
Kenya’s Supreme Court on Monday
allowed opposition leader Raila Odinga access to the computer
servers of the country’s elections body and sought a report on
tests to determine whether there was external interference with
the transmission of the Aug. 8 presidential election results.
Kenya’s Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission
(IEBC), which is defending its conduct of the presidential
elections, was asked on Monday, to allow Odinga and President
Uhuru Kenyatta’s representatives to access its servers and avail
all technology kits for scrutiny of the courts.
The ruling came after Odinga stated in court that information
recorded from individual polling centers differed from the
election results used to arrive at Kenyatta’s presidential
Odinga challenged the election outcome at the court, stating
there was external hacking of the IEBC servers, which affected
the transmission of the presidential election results.
The court has called for a report on the number of servers,
the computer operating systems, the passwords policy and the
levels of access granted to the users into the IEBC system.
President Kenyatta and Odinga’s teams are each expected to
send two experts to the verification exercise.
Justice Isaac Lenaola said the Supreme Court decision was
based on three main things that Kenya’s electoral system is
partly electronic and partly manual, the integrity of the system
including passwords must be protected and the manufacturers of
the electoral systems are in France, hence orders cannot be
granted to summon them due to time constraints.
Justice Lenaola then directed the IEBC to provide the
opposition with information, including the number of servers
used during the general election, access to all procured
electoral kit (used or unused), firewalls without disclosure of
software, operating system and, software and password policy.
Odinga will also access to the original forms with
presidential election results from some 40,833 poll centers and
the 290 constituencies to determine their authenticity.
The judge said an ICT officer appointed by the Supreme Court
and Judiciary’s ICT officer shall supervise, access the
technology used and prepare a report together with two agents
each from the parties in court.
According to the court, it seems Odinga will have a very
restricted and specific access to the servers even though they
had asked for unfettered access.
The court expects to be provided a report prepared by
information technology specialists based on the findings of the
systems penetration tests before close of hearings on Tuesday.
The report will assist court in settling hacking claims,
alleged existence of non-gazetted polling stations, presence of
original forms, alleged differences of results as announced at
the polling station and those captured on forms.
Odinga’s lawyers told Court a statistical formula was used to
rig the elections in favor of Kenyatta.
The lawyers told the court that the difference in votes
between Kenyatta and Odinga could not have remained so
consistent on the portal were the data coming in randomly from
the various polling stations across the country.
They also submitted that there is no way the results could
have started streaming in as early as 5.07 p.m. when the
official polling station closing time was 5 p.m..
Otiende Amolo, the lawyer appearing for Odinga, said the
results of the elections were declared before some 10,480
presidential election declaration forms were obtained by the
The lawyers for the opposition leader also told court there
were results from polling centers not officially recognized for
the purpose of receiving the election results.
According to Amollo, discrepancies which the Commission had
evidently attempted to remedy in a tampering exercise.
"As of Aug. 14, three days after the winner was declared, the
Commission was still missing 10,000 form 34As. Given every
polling station had no more than 700 voters, we’re talking seven
million votes," Amollo said.
The returns for 14 constituencies, he also submitted, were
not made by gazetted officers and therefore invalid, affecting