By JV Owiti via FB
SUPREME COURT: ‘LAYMAN’ VERSION OF WHAT HAPPENED AT THE SUPREME COURT
For the benefit of all of us, the task before the Supreme Court of Kenya in the Petition by Raila Amollo Odinga and Kalonzo Musyoka against the IEBC, Wafula Chebukati and President Uhuru Kenyatta was simple and very clear.
The petitioners moved the SCOK to invalidate the presidential election for the reason that it did not comply with the relevant provisions of the Constitution and laws (including the Elections Act) and that the election was marred with illegalities and or irregularities.
The Respondents denied the allegation by the Petitioners and apart from insisting that the elections were generally in compliance with the Constitution and tye relevant laws added that even if there may have been few deviations; that is, non-compliance with the said laws, the deviations were so minor that they did not substantially affect the result.
The Petitioner was therefore obligated to prove its allegations. It had to prove the alleged hacking of the server, the manipulation of figures, undue influence on the part of the President on some of his officers and also the alleged claims of non-compliance with the law and regulations.
The work of each judge was therefore clearly cut out. Look at each allegation by the petitioner vis a vis the specific response thereto by the relevant respondent and then apply the law to the same and decide on each of those issues if the Petitioner made put a case and whether or not the concerned Respondent sufficiently rebutted the petitioner’s allegation.
At the end of it all, the SCOK (by a majority of 4 to 2) agreed that indeed the Petitioners proved their case as against the Respondents to wit that the presidential election was badly marred with illegalities that it could not stand. The election was this null and void.
What the dissenting judges have in essence said in those very many words and pages is that there were not any irregularities nor illegalities, and that if there were any, then either the Petitioners did not prove them or if they did, then the irregularities and or illegalities could not change the results substantially.
