Opposition leader Raila Odinga claims that 482,202 people chose to vote for the president but did not cast a ballot for governors, a huge variation which he says makes the results of the presidential election suspect.
He further claims 567,517 people who cast a ballot for the president did not vote for Member of Parliament despite the fact that voters were given six ballots and it is illegal to walk out with one.
The National Super Alliance (NASA) presidential candidate has laid out a raft of claims in his written submissions filed at the Supreme Court yesterday.
He pointed out glaring inconsistencies including corresponding results in Form 34A, 34B, 34 C and the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) portal.
“In Bureti Constituency there is discrepancy in the tally of vote and in Wajir South Constituency the discrepancy is on rejected votes. Further discrepancies can be seen in Ndaragwa Constituency, Ol Jorok Constituency, Wajir North Constituency,” he says.
“These are only samples of the polling stations and scrutinised and analysed and which leads to the conclusion that it would be difficult to determine with conciseness who won the elections,” he said.
The ODM leader also says the consistency witnessed during the tallying of the presidential vote and constant progression percentage of about 11 per cent that was maintained between him and President Uhuru Kenyatta is unusual and cannot happen during an election.
He further says this constant percentage difference assumed that the results being randomly transmitted from his and Kenyatta’s strongholds in uniform sequence is statistically impossible.
In order to ammonise the results shown on the IEBC portal, he claims the commission “summoned some of its Returning Officers and Presiding Officers to append their signatures on forms that had been generated to conform to the results that had already been generated.
“The results were computer generated is evident from the fact that the Forms 34A and 34B were tailored to reflect the ammonised results and not instructed by the primary data which ought to have been the case,” he says.
Raila also faults the IEBC for giving a public notice on the polling stations without network coverage only two days to the General Elections contrary to the requirement of publication 45 days to the General Election.
Secondly he says many voters’ details were lost and they therefore could not exercise their right to vote while adding that it was against the law for the IEBC to submit results from 10,056 polling stations via text. A number of these polling stations he says delivered results with glaring inconsistencies.
“Other than streaming and displaying unverified results, the 1st Respondent’s impropriety in the manner it conducted the election is evident by the sheer number of discrepancies in the results in its own portal,” he says.
He also claims that a number of Forms 34A, 34B and 34C that the IEBC used to declare results were forged as they lacked security features.
In some cases he says some presiding officers signed forms from more than one station. This is in addition to the fact that IEBC used many ungazzeted Returning Officers (RO’s) and unsworn Presiding Officers (PO’s).
“In Lugari Constituency the first Form 34B as uploaded from the 1st Respondent’s portal does not bear the serial number, IEBC’s logo, total summation column nor the Returning Officer’s details and stamp,” says Raila.
“In Njoro’s Constituency the uploaded for 34a indicate the same was signed by NASA agents. It is instructive to note that NASA as a coalition did not have agents,” he says.
“The Presiding officer in Qaavine also signed for Gwakathi Primary school; in Nyaore Primary School and Ruora Primary they are signed by an Isaac Omari; in Cheptterwo Dispensary and Kaminjewa Primary both are signed by a Derrick Ngetich; Kiptule polling station; in Sebetet and Chepkoin the forms are signed by Judy Doreen Chelagat,” he says.
Raila also claims that IEBC was under undue influence to announce results prematurely
“All returns without the IEBC’s official stamp not bearing the particulars and signatures of the Returning Officers, not bearing the particulars and signatures of the agents and those not borne on the prescribed forms are invalid and ought to have been so declared by the 1st Respondent before hurriedly declaring the unverified results,” he says.