President Uhuru Kenyatta sucked into petition tussle

At the same time, Maina claims that state machinery under Uhuru has allegedly spared no effort to ensure that her party boss does not become the fifth president of Kenya.

At the same time, she has roped in security agencies, especially the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), claiming that they are working in cahoots and under the president's instructions to illegally deny Ruto the pie that he has won.

According to her, the petition filed before the highest court in the land is an extension of the Building Bridges Initiative process, adding that throughout the campaign period and elections, the State has been abusing its power.

"The substance and purpose of the current petition is no different. Secondly, the State apparatus, controlled by the Commander-in-Chief, who has doubled up as the Chairperson of the Azimio la Umoja One Kenya Coalition, has unashamedly spared no effort to ensure that the ninth respondent is not sworn in as the Fifth President of the Republic of Kenya," says Maina.

She also claims that the prayer by Raila and Karua to have the DCI produce reports on data obtained from Venezuelans and a UDA agent is meant to achieve an unfair score.

She alleges that DCI was weaponised throughout the campaigns and the tallying process.

At the same time, Maina claims that if Supreme Court is to consider Raila and Karua's prayers to be declared as president, then it has to factor in that he has not committed an electoral offence.

She says that Ruto through his presidential campaign secretariat has consistently raised concern about the use of State officers to allegedly campaign for Raila and Karua.

"The outgoing President has with bravado encouraged State officers and public servants, from Cabinet Secretaries to Chiefs, to County Commissioners, to engage in intimidation and harassment of supporters of the ninth respondent.

"Given the outgoing President's succession plan for the Petitioner, he emboldened Cabinet Secretaries to publicly pledge their loyalty to the opposition candidate and to warn voters that they should follow their lead or else," she claims.

She alleges that weeks prior to the election, President Uhuru allegedly implemented a widespread and systematic plan to use chiefs and county commissioners to suppress their voters.

At the same time, Maina claims, the DCI arrested people associated with the party and allegedly carried out surveillance on their supporters.

She claims: "The Directorate of Criminal Investigations based on 'orders from above' undertook a series of false arrests, confiscation of electronic equipment from people related to the party and the candidate, and illicit surveillance of supporters of the 9th Respondent; targets were politicians, IT personnel, Party and Secretariat premises, and technical staff.

DCI's obsession with laptops and the Petitioners' technology paranoia is evidenced by the subsequent confiscation and scripting of an investigation around the laptop belonging to one Koech Geoffrey Kipsongos. To the minds of the Petitioners, every computing device they sight is capable of compromising or indeed compromised the August 9, 2022, presidential election."

According to her, the case is by extension an abuse and stranglehold of State institutions, and asserts the election was free and fair.

However, she takes a jab at Raila's chief agent Siatabao Ole Kanchory by alleging that he initiated 'a near coup.'

She disputes that Chebukati made a false declaration, adding that he is the only one who has the powers to declare presidential election results.

Maina also wades into the IEBC split. According to her, the four commissioners who disowned the final tally acted improperly, adding it was an abdication of duty. She also defends Chebukati saying that the final result was an effort by the entire commission. She asserts that the final results were supplied to the chief agents, election observers, media, and the members of the public.

The first respondent (IEBC) conducted the counting, tallying, and verification of the votes cast at the polling station, Constituency tallying centers, and the National Tallying Centres and declared the results. Further, the results in Forms 34B were verified to confirm that they reflect the results from Forms 34A and thereafter announced the results from each constituency," says Maina.

She also refutes that the results were not being displayed as they trickled in. According to her, any failure to transmit an electronic format of a result cannot invalidate the result as announced and declared at the polling station and constituency tallying centres and thus Chebukati's declaration should be upheld.