Nairobi — President-Elect William Ruto has welcomed the Supreme Court ruling where after the seven justice of the court unanimously upheld his election following a challenge by his main rival, Raila Odinga.
Speaking from his official residence in Karen, Ruto lauded the judges for their firmness and fidelity to the rule of law and the sovereign will of the people.
"The court returned its verdict and I welcome it with tremendous humility. I salute the judges of the Supreme Court who have performed their duty with utmost fidelity to the constitution. They listened to all parties, considered all issues, applied the law and demonstrated their learning, impartiality and patriotism," Ruto said.
Ruto said the decision by the court to uphold his election opens possibilities to ordinary Kenyans who can now believe that they can indeed achieve their dreams and become who they want to be.
"My election opens possibilities for all our children irrespective of their background, irrespective of where they come from and irrespective of their financial status. By working hard and believing in God. They can get to wherever they want to go."
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld Ruto's victory in the August 9 presidential election, ending weeks of political uncertainty and delivering a blow to his closest political rival Odinga who had alleged fraud in the poll.
"This is a unanimous decision. The petitions are hereby dismissed, as a consequence we declare the first respondent (Ruto) as president-elect," Chief Justice Martha Koome said.
In its decision, the Supreme Court said it was satisfied that the President-Elect attained the 50 per cent plus one threshold and upheld his election.
The judges found that the petitioners did not provide a watertight case in regard to the 50 per cent plus one vote requirement.
Koome who delivered the verdict also said that the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) and the Chairperson Wafula Chebukati were right in rounding off percentages.
"The president-elect attained 50%+1 of the total votes cast as evidenced by Forms," she stated.
The court ruled that Ruto was validly elected as the 5th President of the Republic of Kenya.
"Petitions one to seven are hereby dismissed. We declare that the election of William Ruto as President is valid, each party to bear its own costs," Koome stated.
Ruto was declared the President-Elect on August 15, after garnering 7,176,141 votes, representing 50.49 per cent of the votes cast, against Odinga's 6,942,930 votes, translating to 48.85 per cent of the votes cast.
While delivering the abridged ruling, CJ Koome explained the court's position on each of the nine issues that the judges considered in the consolidated petition.
On the first issue of whether the technology deployed by IEBC for the conduct of August 9 poll met the standards of integrity, verifiability, security, and transparency to guarantee accurate and verifiable results, Koome said the court was satisfied.
She added that the bench was not convinced by the allegations made by petitioners that the technology did not meet the required standards.
Koome also stated that IEBC sufficiently explained how the election technology (KIEMS) kits work and that in areas where technology failed, they made sure that Kenyans voted using the manual register.
"The scrutiny orders by the court did not show any security breaches," Koome stated.
On the second issue on whether there was interference in the uploading and transmission of polling station results from the polling stations to the IEBC public portal, Koome said that no credible evidence was presented.
"No credible evidence that forms 34A was being downloaded and uploaded was adduced, and that no evidence of middleman or evidence that IEBC chairman was part of the alleged conspiracy," Koome stated.
On whether there was a difference between Forms 34A uploaded on the IEBC public portal, those received at the national tallying center, and forms 34As issued to the agents at the polling stations, Koome said a scrutiny conducted on the forms from 41 polling stations didn't return any irregularities.
The dismissed John Githongo's allegations that some 56 hackers in Karen changed presidential results.
The seven-member bench also dismissed lawyer Julie Soweto's allegations that Jose Camargo interfered with the presidential elections terming her spirited submission in court as 'hot air'.
"There were no significant differences captured on physical original forma and uploaded forms at the IEBC portal which could have affected the credibility of the presidential election," she stated.
On issue number four on whether the postponement of gubernatorial elections in Kakamega and Mombasa counties and parliamentary polls in Kitui Rural, Kachileba, Rongai, and Pokot South constituencies and electoral wards in Nyaki West in North Imenti constituency and Kwa Njenga in Embakasi South Constituency resulted in voter suppression to the detriment to the petitioners, Koome said that IEBC had a genuine reason to postpone elections in the said areas.
"It has not been shown that IEBC acted in bad faith in postponing the elections, we are satisfied that it was occasioned by a genuine mistake," she said.
On the fifth issue on whether unexplained discrepancies between the votes cast for presidential candidates and other elective positions, the judges found that no evidence was produced by the petitioner to prove ballot stuffing.
"IEBC provided explanation on the discrepancies of the votes, the number of stray votes was insignificant and therefore can't result in a nullification," Koome stated.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
On whether the IEBC carried out the verification, tallying, and declaration of results per the provisions of articles 138 (3)C and 138 (10) of the Constitution, the judges found that verification, tallying and announcements or election results was done as contemplated by the constitution.
The court also said it did not find credible evidence that IEBC Chairperson acted unilaterally.
The judges observed that all the commissioners took part in the process, as they were seen on live Television interchangeably announcing the presidential election results.
They also ruled that the four dissenting commissioners did not submit evidence that what Chebukati announced was different from what the results should have been.
"Are we to nullify an election on account of a last-minute boardroom rupture? This we cannot do," Koome stated.
On the seventh issue, whether the President-Elect attained 50 percent plus one vote of the votes cast in accordance with article 138 (4) of the Constitution, the judges affirmed the threshold was attained.
On the eighth issue on whether there were irregularities and illegalities of such magnitude as to affect the final results of the presidential election, the court found that there were no irregularities and illegalities of such a scale as to affect the final result of the Presidential Election.
