By PAUL JUMA pjuma@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted Tuesday, April 16 2013 at 12:25
Posted Tuesday, April 16 2013 at 12:25
In a 113-page detailed judgement released on
Tuesday morning, the court, says that it considered all the evidence
presented by Mr Odinga and his co-petitioners in the matter and
concluded that the evidence did not warrant nullification of Mr
Kenyatta’s victory.
“The evidence, in our opinion, does not disclose
any profound irregularity in the management of the electoral process,
nor does it gravely impeach the mode of participation in the electoral
process by any of the candidates who offered himself or herself before
the voting public,” the judges concluded.
“It is not evident, on the facts of this case,
that the candidate declared as the President-elect had not obtained the
basic vote-threshold justifying his being declared as such,” said the
ruling.
Five days after Kenya’s March 4 General Election,
the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) declared Mr
Kenyatta President-elect, with 6,173,433 votes.
Mr Odinga, who was the candidate for the Coalition
for Reforms and Democracy (Cord) was announced to have garnered
5,340,546 votes.
Mr Issack Hassan, the IEBC chairman, declared that
Mr Kenyatta was the duly elected President with 50.07 per cent of the
votes cast.
Mr Odinga disputed the results and filed his petition at the Supreme Court.
His case was that “the electoral process was so
fundamentally flawed that it precluded the possibility of discerning
whether the presidential results declared were lawful.”
He accused the IEBC of failing to carry out a
transparent, verifiable, accurate and accountable election as required
by the Constitution.
Civil Society activists Gladwell Otieno and Zahid
Rajan also filed a petition at the same court questioning the conduct of
the elections, while a third petition was filed by activists Moses
Kuria and Dennis Itumbi on the question of spoilt votes.
In the judgement, the six bench judge agreed that
the March 4 elections cannot be said to have been perfect as much as
it's of great interest to Kenyans.
However, the petitioners did not “clearly and
decisively” show that the conduct of the elections was so devoid of
merits and so distorted that it did not reflect the intention of
Kenyans.
No comments:
Post a Comment