A petitioner in the ongoing case at the Supreme Court Challenging President-elect William Ruto’s win in the August 9 election has stated that no lacuna would arise in the event the presidential election is nullified and the polls agency’s boss Wafula Chebukati is indicted by the court.
Through his lawyer Willis Otieno, Khelef Khalifa argues that President Uhuru Kenyatta would still stay in power, citing the constitutional provision that dictates that the president will remain in office until another president is sworn in. Mr Otieno argued that President Kenyatta would be in office within “a narrow mandate.”
“The systems and the functions of government will continue and the lacuna will not affect the people of Kenya. The right thing is to make sure that the people’s voices are actually heard in a true transparent election,” Otieno responded to a question by Supreme Court Judge Mohamed Ibrahim as to whether a lacuna would arise.
The lawyer spoke on a day that saw petitioners respond to questions by the Chief Justice Martha Koome-led Supreme Court Bench, where he made his case that foreigners had no part to play within the servers of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC).
That was in response to a demonstration by Raila Odinga’s lawyer Julie Soweto that showed the involvement of a Venezuelan national, Jose Camargo, in the transmission of Forms 34A. He dismissed IEBC’s explanation that Mr Camargo was among agents of election technology firm Smartmatic contracted to maintain IEBC’s systems.
“He’s like a plumber maintaining the system,” Otieno said of the Venezuelan. “Once a plumber has fixed your bathroom, that plumber has no business being in your bathroom when you’re showering… a plumber who is in your bathroom when you’re showering after fixing your shower is no longer a plumber. He is a sexual offender,” he said, arguing that the IEBC’s system lacked integrity as required by the Constitution, citing an audit report that highlighted the vulnerabilities.
He spent his presentation trashing responses by the IEBC and Dr Ruto’s legal team, dismissing arguments that the Supreme Court ought not to “inconvenience Kenyans” by nullifying the election.
“Our constitutional values and provisions should not be sacrificed at the altar of convenience. If the election officials are tired and cannot do another election, we have more Kenyans who are willing to do this work properly. Give them that opportunity,” Otieno said.
He also faulted the argument on party agents, saying it was the IEBC’s job to conduct a credible election and not that of party agents and also waded into the dysfunctionality of the IEBC, stating that it was historical.
In the same vein, more petitioners faulted submissions that the IEBC chairperson held an executive position, terming it unconstitutional. John Kamau Njoroge’s lawyer Zehrabanu Janmohamed said that the Constitution did not intend that the commissioners be “flower girls and page boys”, sustaining the argument that the IEBC was not a one-man show.
On his part, Busia Senator-elect Okiya Omtata said that the IEBC’s numbers did not add up, saying that the IEBC had hurled so many figures that it was confusing as to which one they had used to tabulate the final result.
“The figures played were meant to mislead the court,” Mr Omtata said. “No one has challenged the fact that numbers don’t add up, meaning it is a work of fiction.”
Discussion about this post