I hear with Prof. Ojwang's polished English, many Jubilee supporters are still confused whether he was with them or not....

When Chief Justice David Maraga on September 1 read the order of the majority four judges of the Supreme Court nullifying President Uhuru Kenyatta’s election victory, he read a churchy statement as prologue. “The greatness of a nation lies in its fidelity to its Constitution and strict adherence to the rule of law, and above all the fear of God,” he said.

In the judgment delivered on Wednesday, Justice Maraga and the majority judges despoiled the Constitution, declared that the rule of three men and a woman is far superior to the rule of law, and joined a long list of human beings, starting with Adam and Eve, who openly defied God.\

Happily, the judgment brought to an end the Maraga Court’s priestly pretentions to holiness and constitutional fidelity.

To the court’s credit, the judgment makes no pretence that it was grounded on any known notion of the law. It is brimming with palpable deficiencies and obvious inconsistencies, is doctrinally incoherent, inelegant and insufficiently reasoned, and is defined by a disconcerting, undisciplined, and cavalier approach.

The law applicable to election disputes is universal. Our courts subscribe to that approach. For any court to nullify an election, the petitioner must show the court that the irregularities he complains of affect the result.

The test is simple and objective. It is a simple, mathematical approach. It rules out the subjective test that makes the judge rule on his emotions or political beliefs.

In this case, Mr Odinga’s case was cut for him. He was to show the court that the irregularities he complained of would lead to deductions of over 1.4 million from Mr Kenyatta’s numbers and a further addition to his numbers would show he was the winner.
In 2013 he failed to satisfy the court with such a paltry figure. In 2017, according to Justice Maraga, Mr Odinga has satisfied the court. How? Very simple. Justice Maraga and his colleagues in the court changed the test from a legal one into a political one and ruled that Mr Odinga passed the test with flying colours.

In the Kiai case, did the Appeals Court rule that constituency numbers are final?

If so, doesn't it mean that form 34Bs filled at constituency level should be added up to declare final results from Form 34C?

SO why is the IEBC chair bound to receive all Form 34As? What is he supposed to do with them?