By: SM Omwenga – USA:
In an earlier post titled “NASA Petition Outcome; My Take,” I noted that while NASA has clearly established by sufficient evidence grounds to nullify the 2017 presidential election under the first prong of Article 83 of the Elections Act of Kenya, I also noted that satisfying the second prong of that article may be “tricky” and went on to analyze reasons why having to do with the impossibility of knowing who actually got what votes when one side was busy cooking numbers.
Just so it’s clear, by saying satisfying the second prong of Section 83 is tricky, I am not suggesting that NASA has not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy that prong; quite the contrary they have done just that in the form of Court ordered scrutiny of Forms 34As and Bs which shows all manner of glaring and in many cases deliberate irregularities affecting 5.3 million votes. (For the record, have yet to get a copy of the official Court filed report but I do have NASA’s report based on scrutiny of the same forms the Court Registrar scrutinized).
That being the case, the Court can point to this fact as the basis to find the Second prong of Section 83 is also satisfied.
My point was, what’s tricky is trying to determine of these 5.3 million votes–and I should not I wasn’t explicit with this number choosing instead to make the point it’s (a) impossible to determine what the genuine number of votes cast were, given the massive rigging and (b) even with these 5.3 million, it would be impossible to know who to allocate what votes in determining whether the 50%+1 threshold was met.
The way I see this the Court should do a 3-step analysis relative to Section 83:
One, were the elections conducted in conformity with the Constitution?
The answer is No because of this widespread and deliberate irregularities affecting 5.3 million votes.
Two, did the non-conforming with the Constitution affect the outcome?
The answer is Yes because there’s no way what’s clearly monkey business affecting 5.3 million votes out of an unknown number of total votes cast could not affect the outcome. Note why I am saying “unknown” number of total votes cast is because nobody knows the true total number of votes cast because the total we have is based on cooked numbers.
Third, is there any LEGAL consideration that would preclude nullification of the presidential election under these circumstances where the law and specifically both prongs of Section 83 are satisfied?
No; nullification of the elections is warranted and it’s so ordered.
P.S. It goes without saying none of the following is legal or appropriate consideration in rendering any Court ruling or judgement:
The list is not exhaustive but we know these are favorites for Lord’s or impunity and corruption throughout the Court’s history will Chief Justice Maraga, the staunch, incorruptible Adventist lead his fellow Justice in proving we finally have a Court with Noble men and women who none of these or other equally inappropriate and immoral consideration dangled before them would find a welcome sign?
We certainly hope so and pray that God gives them the courage and will to remain strong even in the face of strong temptation to succumb for the country needs their resolve to do the right thing.