Kenya Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Chairman, Wafula Chebukati, has spoken out on the irregularities which happened in the just concluded General Election.
This came two days after NASA candidate, Raila Odinga, filed a petition challenging the results. Mr. Chebukati says that he was not given time by the government to wait for the final tally to announce the presidential winner.
“The death of our IT expert Msando scared us all and that’s why it was hard to go against the current regime. We were following orders from above until the time our system was hacked and everything changed,” Chebukati is quoted by CCTN TV as saying.
Two days after the voting day, Chebukati was forced to announce the presidential results, the tallying was still ongoing but Chebukati went ahead and declared Uhuru the winner using the provisional results.
IEBC CEO Ezra Chiloba said that they are ready to conduct another presidential election in case the court rules out that.
Hacking is a myth, I will be vindicated
However, according to Standard Digital, Chebukati on Monday maintained he followed the law in declaring President Uhuru Kenyatta the winner of the August 8 polls.
He told the Supreme Court that he adhered to the law and that a scrutiny of systems and electoral material report would vindicate him.
He was referring to an order by the court delivered Monday allowing the National Super Alliance (NASA) limited access to IEBC servers in its bid to prove that the systems had been hacked and the final results relayed through it doctored in favour of the incumbent, who was announced the winner with 8.2 million against Raila’s 6.7 million.
The Supreme also allowed a prayer by the petitioner that IEBC be compelled to provide over 40,000 forms 34 A which had been used to aggregate the total tally which was used to declare the winner.
Through his lawyer, Peter Wanyama, Chebukati told the court he had been practicing law for 34 years before he got a job as the IEBC chairman and fully understood what was required of him during the elections.
He argued there was no proof he committed an electoral offence.
He explained that the Court of Appeal had taken away power from the IEBC to correct any errors in the forms presented to him from the polling stations and constituencies.
The lawyer told the judges that NASA’s presidential candidate’s allegations concerning the conduct of the elections as presented to court were not true. “The IEBC chair fully complied with the law,” he argued.
Lawyer PLO Lumumba, who was teaming up with Wanyama to defend the chairman, argued that the case by Raila was an animated effort and an afterthought.
Lumumba submitted the affidavit presented to the court by the former prime minister was defective as he had used “we” in the preamble.
On allegations that a mathematical formula had been introduced in the IEBC computer system to award Uhuru more votes while penalising Raila, he said: “What you are shown here is a Pythagoras theorem. The test is simple that the system was simple, you went there, you were identified and you voted. You do not require the Pythagoras theorem. What we see here are small things for which no law knows the cure.”
Lumumba said everything that Raila had presented in court had been answered and thus the case ought to be dismissed.
According to the lawyer, the case was built on quick sand and had tumbled on Chebukati’s evidence. “They have made many allegations but they have not proven anything,” he submitted.
The lawyer likened Raila’s case to that cited in the Bible in 1Kings 3:16-27 where two women were claiming a baby; and one wanted it split into two whereas the other one pleaded with King Solomon to let it live.
Lumumba likened the role of IEBC during the elections as that of a midwife and asserted: “We delivered a baby, that baby is alive and well, you are being asked to strangle the baby! Decline, the baby is alive and well.”
He also argued the case did not have evidence to support it. “I submit that on the basis of the evidence that we have given, the submission, you come to a conclusion that the case should be dismissed with costs,” the judges heard.
Source: CCTN/Standard Digital