Ferdinand Waititu loses poll case, gets Sh5 million bill

Dr Evans Kidero has survived the election petition chopping board to retain his seat as Nairobi governor.

His arch-rival Ferdinand Waititu on Tuesday paid the ultimate price after the High Court dismissed his grounds as “still born”, and ordered him to a pay Sh5 million as cost of the three-month litigation.

Mr Waititu had contested Dr Kidero’s win, alleging that the March 4 poll was marred by malpractices. He claimed that the governor benefited from double voting in some stations, and that some election officials aided him to clinch the seat.

But Mr Justice Richard Mwongo said the typing errors on Form 36 that the former MP had claimed “may occur in an election but cannot automatically lead to an entire nullification”.

“There was no evidence of manipulation to prejudice the petitioner,” the judge said. He said the disputed Form 36 was not static and may have had typos that even if taken into account could not merit nullification of the entire poll.

The judge invoked the ruling of the Supreme Court against former Prime Minister Raila Odinga who had challenged President Kenyatta’s win, but was floored on similar technicalities.

PHOTOGRAPHS

Mr Waititu had claimed that the fact that the number of votes cast in certain polling stations went well above the number of registered voters, then Dr Kidero’s votes had gone up illegitimately.

Justice Mwongo dismissed the allegations, saying the discrepancies cited in Form 36 were “too trifle to nullify the entire election.”

The photographs the petitioner brought to court showing ballot papers strewn in Kayole and Kisumu were dismissed as lacking verification.

“I have carefully considered the evidence and submissions herein... the sovereignty and the will of the people must prevail, setting aside an election has compound effects ... irregularities alone cannot lead to nullification unless they have direct effect on the final outcome,” the judge said.

He said Mr Waititu also failed to bring to court the people he claimed had been locked out of poll centres, and neither did they file affidavits to attest to the claim.

“The petitioner did not adduce any evidence to support the claim on voter suppression and in the circumstance, the court cannot make a favourable finding.”