NAIROBI (Xinhua) --
Kenya’s Supreme Court judges on
Wednesday began to write a ruling on the presidential election
petition hearing after Tuesday’s hearings on whether to uphold
President Uhuru Kenyatta’s re-election or nullify the poll
The two days of court hearing concluded
Tuesday night with the presentation of a report by a Supreme
Court team of information technology experts, which showed the
country’s electoral body failed to comply with the technology
rules and regulations when it conducted the Aug. 8 presidential
"These elections were shambolic," charged James Orengo, the
lead lawyer for opposition leader Raila Odinga, who wants the
election of Kenyatta nullified for failing to meet
constitutional requirements of being free, fair, transparent and
The Supreme Court ordered the scrutiny of the vote and the
result declaration paperwork. Odinga’s lawyers produced result
declaration forms that lacked security features as outlined by
the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC).
Odinga’s lawyers told the apex court the result declaration
forms without security features were falsified and the results
contained in them should equally be dismissed.
The lawyer representing the elections body, Paul Muite, said
the election regulations did not specifically have strict
requirements for the security features on the result declaration
The team of experts assigned by the Supreme Court confirmed
the access to the IEBC servers was restricted and therefore did
not fully comply with the orders of the Court.
President Kenyatta’s lawyer Ahmednassir Abdullahi called for
the dismissal of the petition to nullify the election results.
He described the evidence provided by Odinga’s lawyers a "piece
of science fiction."
Abdullahi said the opposition leader did not prove his case
as required under the "burden of proof" to warrant the
nullification of the results announced by the elections body.
During the hearings, the Supreme Court judges questioned the
IEBC lawyers on the differences recorded between the
presidential vote and the votes for all the other candidates who
participated in the polls.
"There is room for the stray ballot," said IEBC lawyer Tom
Supreme Court Judge Smokin Wanjala asked the IEBC what voters
would do with the five other ballot papers if they refused to
vote for the five other candidates.
The vote differentials was a key part of Odinga’s charge that
the votes were rigged to the extent that it was impossible to
ascertain if Kenyatta was validly elected.
In response to the orders providing the opposition leader
access to the IEBC servers, Orengo said there were cases of
users signing into the IEBC system multiple times against
Odinga’s lawyers also confirmed the identity of private users
who gained access to the IEBC system using private mail
addresses and uploaded the presidential election forms.
The examination of the IEBC server confirmed only 277 users
gained access to the servers as opposed to the number of 40,833
election officials who were required to upload their forms on
Odinga’s lawyers asked the Court to nullify the elections,
but Kenyatta’s lawyers said the results provided in court from
the verification of the IEBC servers differed from what their
experts found out.
Orengo submitted that what the court ought to look at is
whether the election was done accurately, efficiently, and in an
"The question of legitimate election was settled by the Court
of Appeal when they said the IEBC must be fully above suspicion
and command the respect of Kenyans," said Orengo.
He argued that there must be a winner and loser in any
contest, but that the contestants are more interested in the
fairness of the process than the outcome.
On claims that the different margin of votes between the
presidential votes and other seats were minimal and could not
affect the final outcome, the NASA lawyers submitted that the
IEBC was not telling the truth.
The Court is expected to rule on Sept. 1 on whether the
election was valid or whether it should be repeated, if it finds
evidence to nullify the process.