beamed on TV screens at the Centre without any indication of where they
were coming from. On enquiry, IEBC kept fumbling around, alleging that
because of network challenges, images of Forms 34A were not coming in as
fast as would be expected and that some might not come in at all. Ole Kina
deposed that by the end of 10th August, IEBC had supplied them with only
23,000 Forms 34A and 50 Forms 34B.
By the time the results were
declared on 11th August 2017, results from over 10,000 polling stations had
not been received. In the circumstances, he wondered how the final results
declared could be relied upon to validate the election.
[217] The petitioners’ further case is that the results that were streaming in
from 8th August, 2017 to 11th August, 2017 showed a consistent difference of
11% between the results of Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga. According to
the petitioners, such a pattern indicated that the results were not being
streamed in randomly from the different polling stations but that they were
being held somewhere and adjusted using an error adjustment formula to
bring in a pre-determined outcome of results.
[218] In a nutshell, the petitioners’ claim in this regard is that, on the
consideration of the evidence contained in all the affidavits sworn in
support of the petition and the submissions made by their counsel, IEBC’s
conduct of the presidential election was fundamentally flawed and/or
incompatible with the electoral values and principles of the Constitution
including transparency, accountability, accuracy, security, verifiability, and
efficiency. They further argue that contrary to Sections 39, 44 and 44A of
the Elections Act, IEBC failed to transmit or to promptly and
simultaneously electronically transmit presidential election results from
polling stations to the Constituency Tallying Centres (CTC) and National
Presidential
Petition
No.
1
of
2017
90
|
P a g e