Uhuru Kenyatta to be sworn in next Tuesday

 Uhuru Kenyatta during his swearing in ceremony in 2013

 

Supreme Court upholds October 26 poll results. Six Judges unanimous in decision to dismiss two petitions challenging president's victory in repeat poll.

[email protected]

President Uhuru Kenyatta is set to take oath of office for a second term next Tuesday after the Supreme Court upheld his victory in the October 26 repeat election.

In a unanimous decision yesterday, six judges dismissed separate petitions by former Kilome MP Harun Mwau and activists Njonjo Mue and Khelef Khalifa.

The two petitions challenged the repeat presidential election that the court ordered on September 1 when after nullifying Uhuru's August 8 poll victory.

Chief Justice David Maraga, his deputy Philomena Mwilu and Justices Jackton Ojwang, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u and Isaac Lenaola agreed that the two cases did not meet the threshold to annul the repeat poll.

Consequently, Uhuru will be sworn in for the final term next Tuesday in line with the Constitution, which stipulates the inauguration must be done within seven days of the ruling.

The court framed 16 issues for determination, including whether the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) ought to have conducted fresh nominations, the consequences of Opposition leader Raila Odinga's withdrawal and failure to hold elections in some constituencies.

Not merited

In the end, the judges agreed the orders sought were not merited.

“Having carefully considered the above issues, the specific prayers in each petition, as well the Constitution and applicable laws, the court has unanimously determined that the petitioners are not merited,” CJ Maraga said.

“As a consequence the presidential election of the October 26 is hereby upheld as is the election of the third respondent (Uhuru),” he said.

The CJ said it was impossible to have a detailed judgment as the court was left with only two days to read and determine volumes of evidence produced by the antagonists in the case.

The court will give its full judgment in 21 days.

In the Mwau case, the judges said there were six issues for determination. Among them was whether another electoral cycle kicked off after the nullification of the August 8 election.

At the heart of the Khalifa and Mue's case was whether the election conducted on October 26 was valid after National Super Alliance (NASA) presidential candidate Raila Odinga abandoned the re-run and failure to conduct the election in 25 constituencies.

In the case, the court was also asked to determine whether IEBC's failure to conduct fresh nominations illegitimated the entire process.

The court also pointed out it was also asked to determine whether IEBC would have been in contempt of its orders if it pushed the repeat election to a date beyond the 60 days set by the law.

Khalifa and Mue put up a spirited legal battle, arguing the October 26 election was a sham as there were illegalities and irregularities all along.

The two activists built their argument on the internal wrangles between IEBC commissioners and officials.

According to the two, the resignation by former commissioner Roselyne Akombe and admission by Chairman Wafula Chebukati that there were political party-affiliated factions within the commission indicated it was ill prepared to conduct a re-run.

Through lawyer Julie Soweto and Waikwa Wanyoike, the two also argued NASA’s walkout from the repeat contest meant IEBC ought to have called it off for at least 90 days to allow parties carry out fresh nominations.

Fresh nominations

At the same time, the former lawmaker, Mwau, argued nominations ought to have been called within 21 days after the nullification of the August 8 presidential election.

Through his lawyer, Ben Musyoki, Mwau argued the nomination certificates that had been issued by the commission to the candidates expired immediately the apex court pronounced itself.

He accused IEBC of hiding behind the strict timeline of 60 days, which made it impossible to carry nominations, saying they should have acted as soon as the results were invalidated to call for nominations at least 21 days before the Election Day.

 “IBC went on a fishing expedition of other laws to justify its decision while forgetting that the Constitution, which demands nominations before a fresh election, is the supreme law,” said Musyoki.

During the hearing, IEBC chairman Wafula Chebukati defended the October 26 repeat election, saying it was above board.

The chairman, in his response, argued by lawyers Waweru Gatonye, Kamau Karori and Mahat Semane, argued the repeat election was done in accordance with the law and the judgement by the Supreme Court.

According to Mr Chebukati, candidates were not required to seek a fresh mandate from their parties in the re-run.

He also said it was impossible for the parties to hold fresh nominations and for IEBC) to gazette the newly nominated candidates and conduct the election within 60 days.

On the issue of withdrawal of NASA candidates Raila Odinga and Kalonzo Musyoka, Chebukati said the two would have validly pulled out if they had submitted form 24A.

Uhuru on the other hand argued he won the election by a majority and thus the court should throw out the cases.

Through lawyer Fred Ngatia and Ahmednassir Abdullahi, Tom Macharia, Kiragu Kimani and Melisa Ng’ania, Uhuru told the court the Opposition was using the activists to put up a fight.