Data and tools Nasa will access at IEBC

Nasa leader Raila Odinga’s lawyers scored a significant victory when the Supreme Court allowed them access to the electoral commission’s servers for a system audit.

In a unanimous decision, the seven judges said they had given the go-ahead because understanding how the system works will help the court come to a fair decision.

In the 2013 petition, the court rejected Mr Odinga’s plea to access the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) system.
SECURITY
Mr Odinga has insisted that technology was used to rig the election in favour of President Uhuru Kenyatta.

He has also claimed that the data recorded on forms 34A at polling stations was not accurately and transparently entered into the system.

However, the orders were framed in such a manner that will not compromise the commission’s electoral management system.

See the full list here.

The access will be read and copy only, according to the court.

EVIDENCE
The court rejected another request from Mr Odinga that would have allowed him to file another affidavit arising from the outcome of the system audit.

Reading the ruling on behalf of his colleagues, Justice Isaac Lenaola said the new affidavits will introduce new evidence and further delay the hearing, with only four days to the deadline for determining the petition.

Mr Odinga has also alleged that at more than 10,000 polling stations, the data entered into the system was not consistent with the information from the respective forms 34A.

SUPERVISE
Mr Odinga has also alleged that results from some of the stations were relayed from ungazetted areas and the system was configured to give an 11 per cent margin between him and President Kenyatta.

He has described Mr Kenyatta and his deputy as computer-generated leaders, a remark described by the President in his affidavit as demeaning.

The IEBC and President Kenyatta had opposed the application, saying Mr Odinga was engaging in a wild goose chase.

“Regarding prayer 3(a), the same is impractical and difficult to grant because Safron Identity and Security, it was submitted by the counsel for the first and third respondents, is a software company based in France and not being party to these proceedings, to demand that ‘persons and systems’ related to it should be accessed by the petitioners is impractical and may unnecessarily delay the hearing and determination of the petition,” the judges said.

The court said the exercise will be supervised by the registrar of the Supreme Court and it appointed some ICT experts.