Improper and invalid returns

 

23.7 The Petitioners aver that the returns used in a material number of stations at polling and constituency levels such as but not limited to the examples hereinafter provided were not in the prescribed forms 34A and 34B contrary to Regulation 79(2)(a) and 87(1)(a):

 

23.7.1 The Petitioners aver that the 1st Respondent preconceived and deliberately set out to conduct an inconsistent, impartial un-uniform Presidential Election with the goal of manipulating the results by using different forms 34A and 34B at the polling stations and constituency tallying centres.

 

23.7.2 The Petitioners aver that the Forms 34B which ought to have been accurate, legitimate and verifiable across the Country are demonstrably contradictory, defective and bear fatal irregulaties affecting 14,078 polling stations out of the 25,000 Forms 34B.

 

23.7.3 The Petitioners aver that the deliberate use of inconsistent and different forms and returns demonstrates lack of consistency, uniformity, neutrality, impartiality and indicates an intention to manipulate the results and the returns.

 

23.7.4 The Petitioners aver that a substantial number of the Forms 34A and Forms 34B have been tampered with and in the following manner,

 

23.7.5 The Petitioners further aver that even at the time of filing the Petition the 1st Respondent is still in the process fraudulently altering and tampering with the Forms 34A. The 1st Respondent is summoning agents to go to its offices to sign Forms 34A.

 

23.7.6 A number of forms and returns are not signed as required under the law and Regulations.

 

23.7.7 A number of Forms 34B do not indicate the names of the Returning Officer.

 

23.7.8 A substantial number of Forms 34A and 34B do not bear the IEBC authentic stamp or at all.

 

23.7.9 A substantial number of Forms 34A and 34B do not bear the signatures of the candidates agents nor the reason for refusing to sign.

 

23.7.10 A considerable number of polling stations in different areas curiously show the same person as presiding in those stations.

 

23.7.11 In more than half of the 290 constituencies, the returning officers failed to indicate the number of Forms 34A handed over to them as required under the law and the Regulations.

 

23.7.12 The Petitioners aver that it is therefore not possible to verify a number of forms and returns used in the election as required under the law and as would render the election accurate and verifiable.

 

23.7.13 The totality and effect of the forgoing is that the integrity of a material number of forms 34A and forms 34B used in the Presidential Election was wholly compromised and the results therein cannot be relied upon rendering invalid a material number of votes cast and represented by those forms and returns.

 

23.7.14 The Petitioners aver that the cumulative number of the invalidated votes materially affects the final result declared by the 1st Respondent.

 

23.7.15 Furthermore, the Petitioners aver that by using returns and forms unknown to the law, the 1st Respondent manufactured the results of the Presidential Election to an extent that substantially affected the final outcome of the Presidential Election.

The rejected votes to be included in the final presidential election tally, this comes up again In the NASA petition, what did the Mutunga court rule last time, I wonder if the rejected votes were added would affect the 54% Kenyatta votes, my quick calculations adding the rejected and disputed votes about 408k, and taking the 8.2m iebc announced votes Uhuru still leads with 52%

19. In its decision in Presidential Election Petition No. 5 of 2013, Raila Odinga v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & Others this Court held that spoilt votes cannot be counted in computing the 50% plus 1 vote threshold to determine the outcome of the Presidential Election. In arriving at this decision, the Court relied on the reasoning of a minority dissenting opinion in the Seychellois Case of Popular Democratic Movement v Electoral Commission Constitutional Case No. 16 of 2011. However, the majority held that the total number of votes cast in an election refers to all votes cast whether valid or not; that once a vote is cast into a box regardless of whether it will turn out to be valid or not that vote has been cast and belongs to the context of votes cast.

20. The Petitioners aver that should this Court find that the errors in respect of other votes that had not been properly allocated do not count, what would be produced is an illogical outcome where a significant number of voters, eg 10% go through all the process of casting a vote and it counts for nothing.

A runoff would be automatic with two candidates on the ballot

Re: item 4. Do we have any Kenyan law which prohibits hosting election management or tallying system out of the country? I checked the RTS and IEBC website are hosted by Amazon. If there is no law then I see nothing wrong.

@maka, please saidia hapa

@maka, please saidia hapa

The presidential election held on August 7, 2017 ?????