At least 30 constituencies were marred by irregularities in the transmission of presidential results in the August 8 elections.
This is according to a random scrutiny done by a team of experts appointed by the Supreme Court.
A report filed by Registrar of Supreme Court Esther Nyaiyaki shows that a total of 4,120 forms 34As were sampled across five counties and upon verification, some were detected as carbon copies while others were not signed as required by the law.
It was also discovered that 41,541 forms 34As were used to announce presidential results, which exceeds the 40,883 gazetted polling stations across the country.
“I needed to ascertain the exact number of forms delivered. This was done by matching the index with the list of all constituencies per county against the forms received per constituencies per county which was used to mark the forms received against each constituency,” Ms Nyaiyaki said.
The constituencies involved in the sampled verification include Chuka/ Igamba Ng’ombe, Nyaribari Masaba, Mandera West, Mandera South, Bumula, Kabuchai and Sirisia.
The others are Mount Elgon, Bonchari, South Mugirango, Bomachoge Borabu, Bobasi, Bomachoge Chache, Nyaribari Masaba, Nyaribari Chache, Kitutu Chache North, Kitutu Chache South, Lafey and Banisa.
Mandera North, Mandera South, Mandera East, Embakasi Central, Makadara, Embakasi West, Roysambu, Embakasi East, Embakasi North and Maara constituencies were also affected by the irregularities.
The report was prepared by Prof Elijah Omwenga and Prof Joseph Sevilla as the court appointed ICT experts and Ms Janet Kadenyi a Judiciary employee.
Interestingly, election petitions have been filed in the High Court challenging the election of MPs in these constituencies.
According to Ms Nyaiyaki, a total of 84 box files containing all the certified forms from the IEBC representatives were submitted to the court and counted by a team of up to 50 people, among them 10 deputy registrars from the High Court.
The team was supervised by the registrars of the Court of Appeal, High Court and Magistrates Court.
The scrutiny was done by randomly choosing the forms to sample and verify- checking and confirming whether the forms bear the watermarks and the serial numbers.
The handing over of the documents was a process between the IEBC and the Judiciary with the parties in the case acting as eye witnesses.
There were also forms 34As which did not bear the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission’s stamp and that some were scanned copies which were stamped while