A Supreme Court judge has given his reasons for giving a dissenting opinion on the petition that quashed President Kenyatta’s re-election.
on Wednesday said the petitioner, Mr Raila Odinga, failed to prove his case.
According to the judge, the election was conducted in an entirely credible manner and Mr Odinga’s “broad claims” did not warrant its nullification.
The judge argued that the majority decision that quashed President Kenyatta’s was precarious.
Justice Ojwang further said the National Super Alliance (Nasa) leader made wide claims hinged on only one pillar of the electoral process— transmission of results.
He acknowledged that there were procedural errors resulting from human errors but which could not warrant nullification of the election.
“I am opinion the majority decision fails to resonate with the Constitution and the law,” he said.
The judge said the voter had no problem marking the ballots, and that the election was secure, transparent and accountable.
Nasa and Mr Odinga, he said, made broad assertions on alleged wrongdoing on the part of IEBC and often invited the court to ascertain the scope of the mistakes.
The case, he argued, was not valid and was based on weak grounds.
Justice Njoki, Ndung’u, who also gave a dissenting opinion, is delivering her full decision.
Failure to produce forms used to declare Uhuru winner costs Wafula Chebukati team heavily.