I disagree with everything @ Masukuma has said.It is based on a fallacy in thinking. Your argument that people want/ wanted to rid themselves of Uthamaki, is not true, were it true, your flawed "prophesy why he should/ will lose" would have come to pass - it didn't, so please stop advancing it here, the rest of Kenya does not agree.. Instead, the son of Jomo surpassed expectations, and got many votes from many part of this country, he painted it red - literally.

The second point is the police brutality is wrong, but that is different from what @Masukuma is talking about. How those who won handle that victory is different from what the police force is doing. There are ordinary citizens like you and I who have the right to celebrate their win( dare I say whichever way they choose?), then there is the action of the police force which is not a celebration of victory. Why are you equating police force brutality with celebration of victory?
Finally, the onus is not any Kikuyu or Kalenjin about uniting / fostering unity in Kenya, it is on every Kenyan!! Jeez, what is thinking that two tribes have it in them to heal this nation? I think continuity to castigate Jubilee as a Kikuyu/ Kalenjin affair is part of why NASA does not know what hit them

And oh, yes, conceding would go a long way to heal that tension. Do you think it would have been great for NASA to just come out and congratulate UK and say , lets move on as one nation than all these unfounded theatrics, which serve to harden his supporters because his win was "stolen?" So please stop giving them a pass by saying it is a choice, and then telling other people that they have a responsibility.

Ps: I am not a Kikuyu

If PEV is the violence that emerges after an election, then we can study the kinds of violence that have emerged along our history.

Right now, what forms of violence have taken place? What have been the expressions of violence involved and who have been the actors?

It's good that @hardwood has posted those pictures, because we can interrogate the conversation that has taken place between the participants of violence before, during, and after the elections.

Before elections the state says, 'Because some people disputes election results and express displeasure by looting, killing, etc. We'll bring armed force to deal with you.'

The NASA people lie low. But they also know from precedence that elections can be stolen. So this presentation of force by the state can also be used to steal elections. Especially, if those who're in control of the state in fact have an interest in retaining power and are part of the elections.

People go to vote in peace. But many know that things are likely to explode.

After elections, one party, who has been feeding his people with truths before, says; the elections have been stolen.

Now, let us, for a moment apply a reasonableness test: Is it reasonable for those who believe they are victims of theft to show their displeasure and even participate in acts that would suggest that they are not cowed by the armed forces used by the state?

Or rather, would you resist a robber if you knew you had the means and what you were protecting was worth dying for?

The state, owes duty of care to all citizens; and given it's scope and structure and processes, it can foresee scenarios. It can have intelligent plans of care and execution of relations, and hence if the state indeed had a clean heart then it would do their best to apply fairness and protection to all.

For example, the state could define its terms of engagement and effect confidence building measures such as inviting the opposition leadership in national security plans. So that the opposition doesn't have to act on rumors...

But the state made no such initiatives. Why?

And if you were Raila, feeling and even knowing that there were elaborate plans afoot to ensure that he lost, would you concede that you lost fairly?

Allow me for a moment to describe an imaginary situation that may not be so far fetched.

Party X employs strategists to help it win against party Y, which is deemed to be the strongest opposition. The strategists decide to use asymmetrical warfare and attack your biggest weakness, finances.

The plan is to infiltrate party Y and finance it. While doing so, corrupt processes, and warp information. The Russians call it "reflexive control". The plan succeeds. And party Y follows everything according to plan and even believes it will win.

The results come in and it's a different story. There's shock.

Would such a scenario constitute of a stolen election?

Yes,

Tell them...

Had NASWA won...wacha tu!l leave it there. You haven't seen any arrogance yet.

Especially so, mixture of the pain of loss and gullibility/ self blame is not good at all.

Kudos! These are the kind of things I want to read from you. Well put!

@angel, there is something you need to know, I don't know how to share it with you...

Though not a lawyer but guess that whoever makes the claims bears the burden. Under some circumstances, the proof of theft may be so concealed as to be missed out. However, weighting any shreds of evidence may reveal trends or point to the truth. What does the victim have as proof of ownership?