so what if the people elect WR,UK etc then the courts find them not being proper to hold public office - just like mumo appointed by "legitimate" process which was aware of/but ignored allegations. then court says they should not have ignored the allegations.

Can the courts also find the IEBC to have wrongfully allowed those with allegations to stand, and an incompetent (or is it ignorant) electorate going ahead to choose them?.

the courts have no such powers.remember the sovereign power is with the people.so if the people elect neto, pattni,wr,kamenchu or uk in free and fair elections,the courts cannot go against the will of the people

None...just like Matemo. This thing called integrity will really get murky in the coming days.

@murchr mbona unaniangusha hivyo?If u look at my earlier riposte I said this: Nabutola cant be allowed to stand since she has been found guilty by a competent court of law; UK/WSR can run because they havent bn found guilty by any Court; Matemu cant hold public office because he's been found unfit to hold public office by a Court of Law. I had said earlier that despite the requirement of objectivity Courts will lean towards subjectivity in their analysis of whether someone is fit to hold office. One bench may have found him fit and another may have held another way but once a decision was made then he was disqualified from holding public office as he fell short of the requiments of Art. 73. The 3 organs: Executive, Legislature & Judiciary are each supposed to act as a check and balance on excesses. The exececutive & Legislative proposed &approved him. The Judiciary disagreed in its capacity as the ultimate custodian of the Constution.