Uhuru Kenyatta responds to Kenya's election petitions
What you need to know:
The AG and Dr Aukot will only be allowed to argue for 30 minutes each before the three petitioners— Mr Harun Mwau, Njonjo Mue and Khelef Khalifa— make their replies.
The interested parties’ arguments will be restricted to points of law.
The Supreme Court will this morning hear President Uhuru Kenyatta’s response to a consolidated petition challenging his re-election on October 26.
Six judges of the apex court had indicated that Mr Kenyatta would have two hours to rebut the allegations made by the petitions.
AUKOT
The president is represented by lawyers Fred Ngatia, his lead lawyer, Ken Ogetto, Kimani Kiragu, Katwa Kigen, Mellisa Ng’ania, Tom Macharia, Njoroge Regeru and Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi.
Once he completes his arguments, judges David Maraga, Philomena Mwilu, Jackton Ojwang’, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u and Isaac Lenaola will hear the Attorney-General Githu Muigai and Dr EKuru Aukot, who were admitted in the petition as interested parties.
The AG and Dr Aukot will only be allowed to argue for 30 minutes each before the three petitioners— Mr Harun Mwau, Njonjo Mue and Khelef Khalifa— make their replies.
The interested parties’ arguments will be restricted to points of law.
In the afternoon, the court is expected to resume hearing for parties to make comments on the access of forms.
Lawyer Harun Ndubi had on Wednesday night accused the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) of coming up with rules beyond the court’s order.
He said the commission had asked the agents checking the forms at Anniversary Towers to produce their original IDs and sign a register before being granted access.
IEBC
He further alleged that the commission had refused to allow the agents enter the room with any documents, yet they wanted to compare what they have with the original forms.
But Mr Ngatia said his team was comfortable with the rules.
The lawyer said they were also apprehensive that strange forms might be introduced during the exercise or original forms might be plucked from the store.
The petitioners want the election nullified, arguing that IEBC failed to adhere to the directives of the court when it nullified the election of September 1.
Further it is the petitioners’ argument that the IEBC failed to conduct the polls in compliance with the Constitution and the applicable laws.
The commission, however, argues that it carried out the exercise as directed by the court and adhered to all the laws.
The poll, IEBC adds, was conducted under extremely difficult circumstances.
