All eyes on judges as Kenyans wait eagerly

President Uhuru Kenyatta when he visited former President Daniel arap Moi at his Kabarak home in Nakuru County on November 19, 2017. PHOTO | PSCU

What you need to know:

  • No details of the meeting, which was also attended by Baringo Senator Gideon Moi, were forthcoming.
  • Ms Soweto also questioned the impartiality of the IEBC and its chairman Wafula Chebukati.

Supreme Court judges held a day-long meeting on Sunday to finalise their judgment on two petitions seeking to annul President Uhuru Kenyatta’s victory for the second time in three months.

The judges chose the Supreme Court building to deliberate the judgement that they will make Monday with President Kenyatta waiting to know which direction their determination will take and the subsequent ramifications.

As the judges worked to beat the clock, the man at the centre of the petition chose to visit and have lunch with his mentor in Nakuru.
MOI

President Kenyatta, on his Twitter handle, revealed that he had paid a visit to former President Daniel Moi at his Kabarak home in Nakuru.

However, no details of the meeting, which was also attended by Baringo Senator Gideon Moi, were forthcoming.

In their closing arguments on Thursday, the petitioners through lawyer Julie Soweto told the six judges that they should not fear, but uphold the rule of law and constitutionalism by nullifying the poll once again.

She told the court that by doing so, the judges would be “shutting the door unto darkness.”

According to Ms Soweto, by validating an “illegal election” the court would be dividing Kenyans more, if they are not, already.

However, President Kenyatta’s lawyer Fred Ngatia urged the court to dismiss the petition stating that there would be lack of a constitutional order by invalidating the poll outcome.

He urged Chief Justice David Maraga, DCJ Philomena Mwilu, Jackton Ojwang’, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u and Isaac Lenaola to look at the “common good of the nation.”

Among the issues the six Supreme Court judges were to grapple with is whether the voter turn-out affected the outcome of the presidential poll.

CAST VOTES

The petitioners argued that the voter turn-out was so low such that it cannot be said that those who came out to cast their votes, represented the whole country.

The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and President Kenyatta also argued that to vote is a choice and those who turned out to cast their votes cannot be punished because others declined to express theirs.

Ms Soweto also argued that the failure to hold elections in some 3,635 polling stations representing, 1,770,475 voters was fatal.

This, she attributed to violence and intimidation adding that the information had been captured in various reports by reputable organisations including government-owned Kenya National Commission on Human Rights.

Mr Ngatia, however, said: “You cannot vitiate an election on account of violence; which has been instigated to deny a majority their will to vote.”

Ms Soweto also questioned the impartiality of the IEBC and its chairman Wafula Chebukati.

VIOLENCE

She said the commission lacked independence stating that there was “violence” externally and internally, which affected the commission’s work.

“This court cannot avoid the reality before its eyes. IEBC is under the control of the third respondent (President Kenyatta). Their pleadings and responses are similar. The chairman was never independent and evidence will show that he worked to please political leaders,” she said.

Another issue the judges were to look at is who was eligible to contest in the repeat poll on October 26.

The petitioners have argued that the move by Raila Odinga to abandon the race meant that the poll was voided. They also questioned the inclusion of Mr Cyrus Jirongo’s name on the last minute.

Mr Ngatia and IEBC’s Kamau Karori argued that the commission made all its decisions guided by the law and the court.

Mr Karori said the decision to include other candidates was based on the High Court ruling.