By Justin Mupundu
Kenyas Supreme Court ruling that nullified Uhuru Kenyattas 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 Kenyas 47 counties.
Kenyattas 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 Courts landmark judgment, which is Africas 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 NASAs Odingas evidence? Or is it the evidence of the majority stakeholders that participated in the process of monitoring polls? Or how transparent is Kenyas elections managed by that countrys Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC)? Or is it a disguised foreign rich business- empires re-emerging Scramble for Africa?
The Supreme Courts decision to nullify Kenyattas 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 Kenyas polls (held on August 8) did not compromise the election results.
The evidence in-chief is the Presidential Election Returning Officers testimony, an official that declared Kenyattas 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, Its public knowledge that evidence can be manufactured: IEBCs 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 Courts 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.
Kenyas case is not different from Zambias.
A cartel, in unholy alliance with foreign rich business- empire, have schemed a crusade to erode peoples confidence in Africas 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 Africas 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.
Kenyas nullified election is an eye-opener to the African continents 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