Nanok petition begins as Nyong’o disowns forms

Turkana Governor Josphat Nanok. The hearing of a petition against him began on November 30, 2017. PHOTO |MARTIN MUKANGU | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • The former senator is represented in the case by lawyer Katwa Kigen.
  • Mr Nanok’s lawyer, Philip Nyachoti, however, put the witnesses to task to prove their allegations.

The hearing of a petition challenging the re-election of Turkana Governor Josphat Nanok began Thursday in Lodwar amid claims that county government officers bribed voters.

Witnesses for the petitioner, former Turkana Senator John Munyes, were the first to testify before High Court Judge Stephen Riech.

They sought to explain how the governor, who is the first respondent, influenced voters on polling day and presented evidence of the purported election malpractices.

Mr Nanok, of Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), was declared the winner in the August 8 General Election after garnering 76,209 votes while Jubilee Party’s Munyes got 55,507.
SHAMBOLIC

Mr Munyes described the election as shambolic and marked by violence, voter bribery and corruption with use of force and intimidation.

In general, he claimed, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) supported his rival to win.

The former senator is represented in the case by lawyer Katwa Kigen.

One of the witnesses for the petitioner, Mr Lynus Ekidor, who was a Jubilee agent, alleged that county officers – among them Health minister Jane Ajele and her Roads counterpart Augustine Logiron – bribed voters at polling stations in Turkana Central Constituency.

Mr Nanok’s lawyer, Philip Nyachoti, however, put the witnesses to task to prove their allegations.

Meanwhile, Kisumu Governor Prof Anyang’ Nyong’o on Thursday distanced himself from claims of violence and missing results from the statutory forms used to declare him the winner in the August elections.

During cross-examination by lawyer Richard Onsongo for the petitioner— former Governor Jack Ranguma— the Kisumu court heard that there were discrepancies in Forms 37C and 37B, which were generated from the constituencies.