Supreme Court Explains Why it Upheld President Uhuru’s Victory

The Supreme Court has given five main reasons why it upheld President Kenyatta’s victory in the October 26th repeat presidential.

First, the Supreme Court ruled that no fresh nominations were required in the rerun as the nominations held for the August 8th General Elections were still valid for the October 26th presidential race.

“We affirm that all the candidates in the August 8 election were validly nominated and it was proper for the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to have included them on the ballot paper as presidential candidates,” Justice Lenaola stated.

On the implications of opposition leader Raila Odinga’s withdrawal from the presidential race,
the court said that while his withdrawal was legally valid, the court found it could not lead to cancellation of the fresh poll.

“The NASA candidate withdrew publicly and in writing to the first respondent (IEBC Chair Wafula Chebukati). This was effective in law.”

“Withdrawal could not, in law have occasioned a cancellation. The law provides for withdrawal within three days of nominations. The said regulation is not applicable to the situation at hand,” said Justice Smokin Wanjala.

On whether the violence witnessed during the election could lead to its nullification, the judges ruled that any form of violence constitutes a travesty of justice and of rule of law. “Those who intentionally instigate violence should not plead violence as a means of nullification,” read Justice Njoki.

On the issue of alleged threats by the president to Supreme Court judges, the court dismissed the allegations. “While being alive to the fact that the 3rd respondent has on various occasions expressed his dissatisfaction with the (September 1) judgement delivered by this court, no judge of this court was intimidated by the choice of words by the 3rd respondent,” said Justice Smokin Wanjala.

On claims that there were illegalities and irregularities in the repeat poll, the Supreme Court ruled the petitioners failed to prove the claims.

“The irregularities and illegalities must be of such a profound nature as to affect the actual result or integrity of the election for a court to nullify. The petitioners did not discharge the burden of proof required,” Justice Ojwang read.

The court further dismissed the petitioners claims that the low voter turn out in the election could not warrant an invalidation as it has no legal basis.

“An election cannot be tainted solely on voter turnout. Repeat elections and by elections are occasioned by voter fatigue and general apathy. This gives no legal basis for invalidating. The election was credible and met the constitutional threshold,” said CJ Maraga.

“The ultimate yardstick of determining a winner in the presidential election as provided by Article 138 (4) was in our consideration met, hence the election was free and fair.”