Nairobi — The Supreme Court is on Friday at midday expected to conclude hearing the consolidated presidential petition after submissions from the petitioners and respondents.
On Friday, the Apex Court will hear replies to several questions raised by the bench to the respondents who include IEBC, its commissioners led by the Chairperson Wafula Chebukati and President elect William Ruto.
"We have agreed to allow you to respond in the morning, tomorrow, given that when you put your minds together you will be faster in the response than if we do it now," Chief Justice Martha Koome directed.
Also, they will hear rebuttals from the petitioners including Raila Odinga on some of the issues they raised during their oral submissions in the presidential petition.
The seven judge bench which include CJ Koome, Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, justices Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndungu, Isaac Lenaola, William Ouko and Mohammed Ibrahim will thereafter retreat to pen a summary ruling over the weekend ahead of the much-awaited verdict on Monday.
"We are trying to see how we can bring this proceeding to an end at least by midday tomorrow so that for us we can retreat to do the biggest job that has fallen on our hands and come up with a judgment by Monday," Koome stated.
On Thursday, Prof Githu Muigai, former Attorney General, who led IEBC legal team in making oral submission before the Supreme Court defended Chebukati from claims of running a one-man show and side-lining four commissioners.
"The suggestion that we should have a plenary conversation about the result is what that would cause huge ramifications to this country," Senior Counsel Kamau Karori told the court.
"What would happen if after the elections are conducted and completed, commissioners for whatever reason take different positions and decide that they're not agreed on the declaration to be made and that a declaration cannot be made until they're all agreed?" he posed.
Karori also challenged the notion that the implied meaning of IEBC, in running an election, as an institution is the 7-member plenary consisting of the Chairperson and six other commissioners, excluding secretariat staff.
He affirmed that Article 138 (10) was specific on who bore the role of declaring the presidential election result and that in doing so, the Chairperson would work with staff of the commission and not commissioners exclusively.
"If that is what was intended by the Constitution, nothing would have been easier for Article 138 (10) to have made reference to members of the Commission," Karori stated.
Article 138 (10) required that: "Within seven days after the presidential election, the chairperson of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission shall- (a) declare the result of the election; and (b) deliver a written notification of the result to the Chief Justice and the incumbent President."
Karori went on to say that had the law required the declaration to be backed by a plenary resolution; Article 138 (10) would have been clear on the same.
"It is deliberate that it only required the Chairperson to declare the results and in my humble submission, is that the protection intended by Article 138 (10) worked in these circumstances," Karori stated.
The lawyer who formed part of the four-member legal team representing the commission, with Chairperson Wafula Chebukati and commissioners Boya Molu and Abdi Guliye represented by another set of lawyers in their individual capacities, said a requirement for the plenary to agree on the result would create room for a constitutional crisis in light of the events preceding the declaration of William Ruto as President-Elect on August 15.
"We got a declaration made because it is the obligation of the Chairperson to make the declaration and anybody unhappy the option available is for them to come the court. It cannot be that a number of commissioners can decide to walk out so that a declaration does not take place," he told the seven-member court presided over by Chief Justice Martha Koome.
On Wednesday, lawyers representing the lead petitioners - Azimio presidential candidate Raila Odinga and his running mate Martha Karua - made their oral submissions challenging William Ruto's declaration as President-Elect saying he failed to attain the 50 per cent plus 1 threshold set out in the constitution.
The legal team led by Senior Counsel Orengo also questioned the discrepancies between votes cast in the presidential election compared to other electoral contests including gubernatorial races held concurrently.
They dismissed reports of stray ballots as well as prison and Diaspora votes which are limited to the presidential election -- that could account for the discrepancies -- as improbable.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Lawyer Julie Soweto also alleged manipulation of tallies saying votes cast in favor of Azimio candidate were in some instances deducted.
Lawyers Paul Mwangi and Pheroze Nowrojee completed the lead petitioners' arguments after the court capped the number of lawyers for main parties at four.
Nowrojee faulted IEBC Chairperson Wafula Chebukati accusing him of dangling the August 9 presidential election adding that he should not remain as the head of the electoral agency whatever the outcome of the petition was.
Under guidelines issued by the court on Tuesday, Odinga's team was allocated three hours with six other petitioners in the consolidated suit allotted thirty minutes each with the number of counsel speaking capped at two for each.
Others who addressed the court were lawyers representing Juliana Nyokabi, Simon Mwaura and Joseph Mutua.
The court also heard arguments from lawyers representing four IEBC commissioners -- Juliana Cherera (Vice Chairperson), Francis Wanderi, Justus Nyang'aya, Francis Wanderi and Irene Masit -- who disowned Chebukati's declaration of Ruto as President-Elect following the August 9 presidential election.
