President Uhuru Kenyatta’s legal team on Tuesday concluded its submissions to the Supreme Court by asking it to disregard NASA’s plea to annul the presidential results.
The lawyers went on to call the opposition’s case fictional and hollow.
Uhuru, who is the third respondent in the petition, was represented by lawyers Ahmednasir Abdullahi and Fred Ngatia. They based his defense on Article 38 (2) of the 2010 Constitution which explains how a court can invalidate and annul a presidential election.
Senior counsel Abdullahi argued that a presidential election can only be invalidated by reverse engineering Article 38 (2) which states “every citizen has the right to free, fair and regular elections based on universal suffrage and the free expression of the will of the electors for any elective public body or office established under this Constitution; or any office.”
He said that it is “only when you can show that a voter entitled to vote was denied the right to practice his/her political right that the court can nullify a presidential election.”
The opposition coalition’s lawyer, Otiende Amollo, questioned the pattern of preliminary results streamed by the electoral commission.
“When you look at the pattern of results, the difference between Kenyatta and Mr. Odinga was maintained by 11% throughout the process. It is our understanding that the results were not streaming directly from the polling station but they were released in batches,” argued Otiende.
He went on to give the Supreme Court an algorithm formula that was allegedly used to rig the election in favor of Mr. Kenyatta. Y=1.2045x + 183546.
Mr. Ngatia, Uhuru’s lawyer, blasted the rigging formula saying:
“The formula has no application whatsoever because when you even take the final votes of the first respondent, Mr. Kenyatta (54.17%), to those of the petitioner, Mr. Odinga (44.94%), the difference is not even 11% as they allege,” argued Mr. Ngatia.
Mr. Ngatia insisted that President Kenyatta’s win is valid and bolstered by the unanimous verdict given by local and international election observers as a free, fair and credible process.
“Even if you lower the standards of proof, in this case, the petition will be dismissed. Even if the court will expunge all the evidence presented by 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents and allow the petition to be prosecuted, it will still be dismissed.
This petition is a fictitious one that could only interest directors in Hollywood. All they have claimed is hearsay,” concluded Mr. Abdullahi.
More To Follow…