Kenya: No Clarity Needed in Ruling, Judges Insist

ODM chairperson John Mbadi (centre) addresses journalists after a Nasa parliamentary group meeting on October 10, 2017.
9 October 2017

The Supreme Court was treated to heated arguments on Monday as judges sought to understand what clarification the electoral commission was seeking.

Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission lawyer Paul Muite said the court created the confusion and needed to clarify what the commission chairman should do "in case he notices errors in the presidential election results forms".

Mr Muite told Chief Justice David Maraga, Deputy CJ Philomena Mwilu and justices Jackton Ojwang, Smokin Wanjala and Isaac Lenaola that the court criticised the commission for announcing the presidential poll results before verification.

RESULTS

He said while the Court of Appeal was clear that results, once announced at polling stations were final, the Supreme Court faulted IEBC chairman for announcing figures that did not add up.

Justice Mwilu told Mr Muite that she could not recall the court telling IEBC to verify results at the national tallying centre.

Mr Muite said: "We are seeking a clarification on how the presidential returning officer should go about verifying results before announcing the winner."

TRANSMISSION

Mr Maraga then asked Muite to read Section 39(1)(c) of the Elections Act, which the senior counsel did and said he had no trouble understanding it.

"Perhaps, Chief Justice should explain what you mean," Mr Muite said when Mr Maraga told him it was "that simple".

The section reads: "The commission shall electronically transmit, in the prescribed form, the tabulated results of an election for the president from a polling station to the constituency tallying centre and to the national tallying centre."

Mr Muite said it was not clear if the commission should use Forms 34A or 34B to announce the election outcome.

IEBC

Form 34B, filled at the constituency tallying centre, is the aggregate of Forms 34A from polling stations.

Mr Kamau Karori, also acting for IEBC, explained the dilemma the commission was facing.

"After verification, what happens?" he asked, adding that IEBC was ready to comply with an order given by the court.

Prof Ben Sihanya, for Nasa, said the commission was trying to appeal against the Maina Kiai case, yet the Supreme Court dealt with the matter by upholding the decision.

"Courts have been telling IEBC to follow the law, but it does not," he said.

SUBMISSIONS

The Law Society of Kenya, through Mr Stephen Mwenesi, said the judges upheld the Court of Appeal decision.

Where is the error in the judgment?" he asked.

Mr Kiragu Kimani, who appeared for President Kenyatta asked the court to give directions on the matter.

But Mr Elias Mutuma, who appeared for Thirdway Alliance, opposed the case being heard at the Supreme Court, saying the party had also filed a petition seeking clarification on who should participate in the poll but the case was struck out.

The judges directed IEBC to file written submissions by the end of Monday while other parties file theirs Tuesday, ahead of the hearing on Wednesday.

See What Everyone is Watching

More From: Nation

Don't Miss

AllAfrica publishes around 700 reports a day from more than 140 news organizations and over 500 other institutions and individuals, representing a diversity of positions on every topic. We publish news and views ranging from vigorous opponents of governments to government publications and spokespersons. Publishers named above each report are responsible for their own content, which AllAfrica does not have the legal right to edit or correct.

Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica. To address comments or complaints, please Contact us.