[292] The failure by the 1st respondent to verify the results, in consultation
with the 2nd respondent, before the latter declared them, therefore went
against the expectation of Article 138(3)(c) of the Constitution, just as the
failure to electronically and simultaneously transmit the results from all the
polling stations to the National Tallying Centre, violated the provisions of
Section 39 (1C) of the Elections Act. These violations of the Constitution
and the law, call into serious doubt as to whether the said election can be
said to have been a free expression of the will of the people as contemplated
by Article 38 of the Constitution.
[293] It was further urged in Court by a number of counsel for the 1st and
2nd respondent, that by disregarding Forms 34A, and exclusively relying on
Forms 34B (many of whose authenticity would later be called into
question), in the tallying process, the said respondents were simply
complying with the Court of Appeal’s decision in Maina Kiai. We have
already held, that we find little or nothing in this decision, to suggest that,
by deciding the way it did, the Appellate Court restrained or barred the 1st
respondent from verifying the results before declaring them, or that it was
relieving the former from the statutory duty of electronically transmitting
the results. What the 2nd respondent was barred from doing by the Court of
Appeal and the High Court, was to vary, alter, or change the results
relayed to the National Tallying Centre from the polling stations and
Constituency Tallying Centres, under the guise of verifying.
[294] But be that as it may, how spectacularly re-assuring to the Kenyan
people would it have been if the 2nd respondent, on that night of August 11
2017, had commenced the declaration of the results, with these words:
Presidential
Petition
No.
1
of
2017
123
|
P a g e
Select target paragraph3
Connect to a paragraph
Connect to an entity
Disable highlights
Add to table of contents