Presidential aspirant disowns approval of Uhuru’s win, seeks to be enjoined in Raila petition

Third Way Alliance presidential candidate Ekuru Aukot speaking to the press

Third Way Alliance presidential candidate Ekuru Aukot has disowned his agent's signature that approved President Uhuru Kenyatta's re-election.

Dr Aukot in his application to be enjoined in the Supreme Court case challenging President Uhuru Kenyatta's win stated that he refused to sign the final presidential results over the massive irregularities but his chief agent, Bill Kagai, went against the party's position to sign the document.

As a result, the party's National Executive Council resolved to revoke Mr Kagai's signature on the final declaration form for presidential results and to dispute the outcome.

Dr Aukot swore that his party's audit of the president results had revealed massive irregularities which will help the Supreme Court reach a just and fair determination of the suit filed by National Super Alliance presidential candidate Raila Odinga.

"Our audit and submissions during the hearing will reveal crucial facts touching on the credibility and verifiability of the presidential election results. I have crucial information gathered before, during and after the election which touch on the key issues raised in the petition," said Aukot.

Dr Aukot's application to be joined in the suit is supported by affidavits sworn by his four chief agents during the tallying of presidential results at Bomas of Kenya, which claims that there was massive discrepancies of the votes announced at polling centres and the final tallies.

The party's secretary general Martin Mwenesi narrated in his affidavit the difficulty they had accessing results from polling stations as recorded in forms 34A, and that they became suspicious when the electoral commission started issuing unsigned forms from the centres.

"What was disturbing was that after our incessant demands to be shown the Form 34As, the commission hastily prepared the documents that were not signed and the handwriting on them consistently appeared to have been written by one person," said Mwenesi.

He stated that on August 9 when they demanded to be given Form 34Bs showing the constituency results, they were given only 92 forms out of the 290 constituencies and their scrutiny revealed inconsistencies including wrong summation of total results and mixed up details of candidates.

According to Mwenesi, one returning officer had signed the results of several constituencies and wondered how that could be possible when only one returning officer was assigned to sign the Form 34B from the constituency they were presiding.

He added that their audit of Form 34As revealed that details of party agents were falsified and that analysis of constituency tallies of each presidential candidate did not correspond to the figures from the polling centres.