Kenya’s nullified election: Is it a disguised ‘scramble for Africa?’
Raila Odinga (l) Uhuru Kenyatta
By Justin Mupundu
Kenya’s Supreme Court ruling that nullified Uhuru Kenyatta’s victory alleging was marred with irregularities is flawed.
President Kenyatta was re-elected with 8.3 million votes or 54 percent of the vote, beating his closest rival National Super Alliance (NASA)’s Raila Odinga who polled 6.8 million or 45 percent of the vote.
Kenya holds six elections at the same time: Presidential, Governorship, Women Representatives, Senatorial, Parliamentary and National Assembly.
The voter turnout was about 15,181,540 million or 80 percent of the 19,611,423 million registered voters.
One scoops the presidency with 50 percent plus one vote and at least 25 percent votes in half of Kenya’s 47 counties.
Kenyatta’s Jubilee Alliance party won in over 29 counties.
Kenya has a bicameral system: 350-Member National Assembly, and 68-Member Senate.
About 290 Members of Parliament are elected via a single constituency-list, and 47 seats are reserved for Women and youth in the 47 counties.
But the Supreme Court‘s landmark judgment, which is Africa’s first epoch-making decision that nullified election, raises more questions than answers:
What was the four out of six judges’ evidence –in-chief in that verdict? Is it the judges’ selfish agenda that was used as evidence-in-chief? Or is it the petitioners’ or the losing presidential candidate NASA’s Odinga’s evidence? Or is it the evidence of the majority stakeholders that participated in the process of monitoring polls? Or how transparent is Kenya’s elections managed by that country’s Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC)? Or is it a disguised foreign rich business- empire’s re-emerging ‘Scramble for Africa?’
The Supreme Court‘s decision to nullify Kenyatta’s victory was anchored on assumptions, and not sound judgment.
This explains why judges are not competent in handling election petition cases: The four judges led by Chief Justice David Maranga unprofessionally handled the election petition.
First and foremost, the magnitude of the alleged irregularities that marred Kenya’s polls (held on August 8) did not compromise the election results.
The evidence –in-chief is the Presidential Election Returning Officer’s testimony, an official that declared Kenyatta’s victory: But this essential ingredient in the Supreme Court verdict was missing!
Secondly, opposition political parties in Africa are suffering from an ‘Election –rigging infra-image’: Not ready to concede defeat gracefully because of their hard line attitude towards elections.
Thirdly, It’s public knowledge that evidence can be manufactured: IEBC’s electronic system hacking claims by the opposition leader, Odinga, are false. Similarly; fraud claims of verified presidential election results without the stipulated 34A forms are baseless: In case of the absence of 34 A forms, the electoral body compared results captured by all stakeholders.
Fourthly, the Supreme Court ruling questioned both local election monitors and international observers: How did they declare elections transparent, free and fair that was allegedly marred with irregularities?
There is no reason to doubt the local and international observers’ assessment of the Kenyan election.
The local and international election observers were physically present in the field and examined the entire electoral process: Preparation of polls, voting, votes counting, announcement of election results, verified election results, and declaration of the winner.
Further, Parallel Voter Tabulation (PVT), which was independently conducted by a consortium of Churches and faith -based organizations, tenders credible evince.
But there are better reasons to question the Supreme Court‘s judgment: How the four judges nullified election declared transparent, free and fair by the majority stakeholders?
The Supreme Court judges, unlike the local monitors and international observers that were physically present in the field, sat in the Court room listening to the evidence submitted to them by an aggrieved person.
Kenyan election, although marred with minor irregularities, are conducted in a transparent, free and fair manner.
Kenya’s case is not different from Zambia’s.
A cartel, in unholy alliance with foreign rich business- empire, have schemed a crusade to erode people’s confidence in Africa’s electoral bodies.
The cartel is using various governance institutions, including Courts of law, in a scheme orchestrated to impose their puppet President: Means to re-gain control of Africa’s mineral rights.
Kenyan judges acted out of pressure from invisible forces that paid for their judgment: A calculated scheme to’ smuggle’ in imperialism in Africa.
Kenya’s nullified election is an eye-opener to the African continent’s re-emerging “Scramble for Africa” disguised in election disputes.
Therefore, there is need for African governments to explore innovative ways to verify the accuracy of presidential election results than election petitions: Develops an electoral system that verifies presidential election results without adducing evidence from petitioners.
Meanwhile, Kenyatta should file an application for judicial review of the case to expose the judges’ selfish agenda.
The author is a media consultant and political analyst