The electoral commission told Supreme Court judges on Monday that the results it generated were a true reflection of Kenyan voters’ will.
The commission also denied entirely claims raised by National Super Alliance (NASA) presidential candidate Raila Odinga and poked holes in the evidence he presented in court.
In its reply, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) built its case around the process of transmitting the results, the Court of Appeal decision on the finality of the results and Raila’s team’s behaviour during the election.
The court heard that the case filed by NASA was a blend of lies without proof.
Senior Counsel Paul Muite led IEBC’s counter-argument, saying the August 8 election was free and fair, and expressed the will of the people. “No one raised any issue on the tallying process. The final result is a reflection of what Kenyans wanted,” he argued.
- READ MORE
- Trump slammed after asking women at rally if husbands ‘are OK’ with them being there
- Trump to name Supreme Court pick at end of week
- Why our polls cost an arm and a leg
- How parliamentarians failed four times to enact bill on gender rule
The IEBC did however admit that the figures and forms ought to have been sent simultaneously.
Lawyer Paul Nyamodi said pictures of forms 34A and 34B from the kits were the valid results.
On transmission, he argued IEBC had the option of using either a purely electronic system or delivering the results manually.
“Elections in Kenya are not purely electronic. Results are delivered either electronically or manually,” the court heard.
Mr Nyamodi argued that IEBC Chairman Wafula Chebukati never altered anything he got from the constituencies. He explained that what was aired on television was meant to keep the public in the know about the progress of the process.
“That is the journey of the result,” he said. “Those figures were not provisional results.”
He explained that the Court of Appeal had ruled that the final word was to be at the constituency level, not at the National Tallying Centre.
“A true reading of the decision is that the soft document that the second respondent used to declare the winner is Form 34B,” he explained. “Provisional results were done away with. That court took away the ability to render any result as provisional.”
He argued that the impact of the decision by the second highest court in the land was also translated to Form 34C, which was previously a collation of forms 34A. Instead, the form contains forms 34B.
The lawyer rejected claims that the results announced by IEBC were computer-generated. He said NASA officials refused to scrutinise the original documents that were being received.
The judges also heard that the role of ICT is just like that of a bus or a courier.
“All it did was to transport the result from one place to another. It did not generate any results.”
The lawyer submitted that the issue of hacking and adding results was not raised in the case filed by Raila.
“We have searched the length and breadth of the petition and that evidence does not appear,” he said.
He also pointed out that Raila had demanded to be declared the winner “with a tally of eight million votes”. However, he noted, the figures and the demand were also missing from the case.
The judges further heard that there was no requirement for IEBC to stamp forms 34A and 34B.