Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?

[vooke]

You got it but lost it somewhere.

The appellant vide the 290 ROs receives prescribed forms containing tabulated results for election of President electronically transmitted to it from the near 40,000 polling stations.I mean this is accomplished by the ROs receiving the results from the stations and filling 290 forms 34B, and not NTC receiving them which is at most an internal process since the results have ALREADY been electronically transmitted.

 Remember the judges were not making an argument about the NEED of forms 34As at NTC as nobody was contesting this. So your inference from this statement is plain wrong.

Back to my point. The election Act is clear as to transmission of forms 34A and 34B to NTC, but generation of 34C needs ONLY 34Bs and not 34As.

If the appellant generates 290 forms 34B, and transmits them to NTC,there is presumption that it's ROs are full of integrity having been rigorously vetted, and there is no further need to verify their job before declaration as the appellant had suggested, the effect of which is to make the product of such a rigorous exercise provisional.

[vooke]

He declared the election outcome with max 108 34Bs.  3 days after the declaration, August 14th, IEBC still had not released the remaining 182 34Bs.  Court records. 

Whatever else one may call it, a valid declaration is not one of those things.

A few  things
1. It was NASWA which claimed that the chairman declared results without all forms 34B I doubt the claim survived the judgement. IEBC denied this.

2. If they declared the results without all forms 34Bs then the results were at that point unverifiable.

3. My contention is not forms 34B but 34A. NASWA and the judges all lambasted chairperson for declaring without all forms 34A.

On #3 I agree all forms 34A should be transmitted, and this was not done by the time of declaration. What I dispute is the impact of the missing forms. I maintain that the laws as they are, absence of these forms does not affect verifiability of the results. SCOK,NASWA insist they do.

Mwilu was right that Kiai case did not overrule the Elections Act sections that require transmission of forms 34A to NTC, but the chairperson never claimed that it did. That was a strawman. The chairperson simply said the forms were not necessary for the declaration.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

received at the national tallying centre, without interfering with the figures and details of the outcome of the vote as received from the constituency tallying centre

Therefore the appellant(IEBC) is supposed to receive results at NTC from

(1) the CTCs and 
(2) all the polling stations(34As) and tally and "verify" them(but not 34A verification).

It looks like IEBC needs the transmitted 34As before declaration by the chairman.  There were thousands sill missing days after the declaration.  If you look at IEBC as one entity for this purpose, even if they are relying only on 34Bs, it still means these 34Bs were completed with thousands of 34As still unavailable.

You got it but lost it somewhere.

The appellant vide the 290 ROs receives prescribed forms containing tabulated results for election of President electronically transmitted to it from the near 40,000 polling stations.I mean this is accomplished by the ROs receiving the results from the stations and filling 290 forms 34B, and not NTC receiving them which is at most an internal process since the results have ALREADY been electronically transmitted.

 Remember the judges were not making an argument about the NEED of forms 34As at NTC as nobody was contesting this. So your inference from this statement is plain wrong.

Back to my point. The election Act is clear as to transmission of forms 34A and 34B to NTC, but generation of 34C needs ONLY 34Bs and not 34As.

If the appellant generates 290 forms 34B, and transmits them to NTC,there is presumption that it's ROs are full of integrity having been rigorously vetted, and there is no further need to verify their job before declaration as the appellant had suggested, the effect of which is to make the product of such a rigorous exercise provisional.

You would be right minus the part in red.  As it is you are repurposing the plain meaning of the sentence to support your claim.  Both NTC and CTC receive 34As.  This is a legal requirement, not an internal process.

[RV Pundit]

Precisely. I really pity Chebukati here because he been tossed around and know he find himself tied in knots he cannot entangled himself from. Parlliament need to make this very clear.,...by codifying IEBC regulations into law.

A few  things
1. It was NASWA which claimed that the chairman declared results without all forms 34B I doubt the claim survived the judgement. IEBC denied this.

2. If they declared the results without all forms 34Bs then the results were at that point unverifiable.

3. My contention is not forms 34B but 34A. NASWA and the judges all lambasted chairperson for declaring without all forms 34A.

On #3 I agree all forms 34A should be transmitted, and this was not done by the time of declaration. What I dispute is the impact of the missing forms. I maintain that the laws as they are, absence of these forms does not affect verifiability of the results. SCOK,NASWA insist they do.

Mwilu was right that Kiai case did not overrule the Elections Act sections that require transmission of forms 34A to NTC, but the chairperson never claimed that it did. That was a strawman. The chairperson simply said the forms were not necessary for the declaration.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

He declared the election outcome with max 108 34Bs.  3 days after the declaration, August 14th, IEBC still had not released the remaining 182 34Bs.  Court records. 

Whatever else one may call it, a valid declaration is not one of those things.

A few  things
1. It was NASWA which claimed that the chairman declared results without all forms 34B I doubt the claim survived the judgement. IEBC denied this.

2. If they declared the results without all forms 34Bs then the results were at that point unverifiable.

3. My contention is not forms 34B but 34A. NASWA and the judges all lambasted chairperson for declaring without all forms 34A.

On #3 I agree all forms 34A should be transmitted, and this was not done by the time of declaration. What I dispute is the impact of the missing forms. I maintain that the laws as they are, absence of these forms does not affect verifiability of the results. SCOK,NASWA insist they do.

Mwilu was right that Kiai case did not overrule the Elections Act sections that require transmission of forms 34A to NTC, but the chairperson never claimed that it did. That was a strawman. The chairperson simply said the forms were not necessary for the declaration.

It was not denied in court.

[vooke]

You would be right minus the part in red.  As it is you are repurposing the plain meaning of the sentence to support your claim.  Both NTC and CTC receive 34As.  This is a legal requirement, not an internal process.

I have nowhere indicated that NTC is not bound to receive forms 34A. That is in the Elections Act and the Regulations.

You need to appreciate that some provisions of the laws came into place before this Kiai case hit High Court. They have been retained but are redundant.

Previously ROs were supposed to go to NTC with both their tallies and station results forms (not sure how they designated them back then). Chairperson was supposed to use both these to declare the final results.

We still have this,except it is in electronic form and no verification whatsoever is expected of the chairperson save constitutional threshold.

[vooke]

He declared the election outcome with max 108 34Bs.  3 days after the declaration, August 14th, IEBC still had not released the remaining 182 34Bs.  Court records. 

Whatever else one may call it, a valid declaration is not one of those things.

A few  things
1. It was NASWA which claimed that the chairman declared results without all forms 34B I doubt the claim survived the judgement. IEBC denied this.

2. If they declared the results without all forms 34Bs then the results were at that point unverifiable.

3. My contention is not forms 34B but 34A. NASWA and the judges all lambasted chairperson for declaring without all forms 34A.

On #3 I agree all forms 34A should be transmitted, and this was not done by the time of declaration. What I dispute is the impact of the missing forms. I maintain that the laws as they are, absence of these forms does not affect verifiability of the results. SCOK,NASWA insist they do.

Mwilu was right that Kiai case did not overrule the Elections Act sections that require transmission of forms 34A to NTC, but the chairperson never claimed that it did. That was a strawman. The chairperson simply said the forms were not necessary for the declaration.

It was not denied in court.

Study Kassait's affidavit. I lost some documents in my iPad following the upgrade and it was among them. If you have it, pleas do check it out against Nyangasi's

[vooke]

Precisely. I really pity Chebukati here because he been tossed around and know he find himself tied in knots he cannot entangled himself from. Parlliament need to make this very clear.,...by codifying IEBC regulations into law.

Yeah I agree. This is not a NASWA vs Jubilee issue though Jubilee is on the receiving end of this ambiguity.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

You would be right minus the part in red.  As it is you are repurposing the plain meaning of the sentence to support your claim.  Both NTC and CTC receive 34As.  This is a legal requirement, not an internal process.

I have nowhere indicated that NTC is not bound to receive forms 34A. That is in the Elections Act and the Regulations.

You need to appreciate that some provisions of the laws came into place before this Kiai case hit High Court. They have been retained but are redundant.

Previously ROs were supposed to go to NTC with both their tallies and station results forms (not sure how they designated them back then). Chairperson was supposed to use both these to declare the final results.

We still have this,except it is in electronic form and no verification whatsoever is expected of the chairperson save constitutional threshold.

Slow down.  There is no ambiguity in the sentence in question.  40,000 scans are expected at NTC to be tallied and verified.  Remove the red highlight, and you might see the ambiguity.  But the highlight is there as part of sentence.  Are you denying that?

[RV Pundit]

And 290 form 34B scans - which are also expected in NTC - are exactly for what purpose? To counter check 34As? And then what happens if there is a discrepancy. This is simple commonsensical issue that senior judges should make it simple and clear.

Slow down.  There is no ambiguity in the sentence in question.  40,000 scans are expected at NTC to be tallied and verified.  Remove the red highlight, and you might see the ambiguity.  But the highlight is there as part of sentence.  Are you denying that?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

And 290 form 34B scans - which are also expected in NTC - are exactly for what purpose? To counter check 34As? And then what happens if there is a discrepancy. This is simple commonsensical issue that senior judges should make it simple and clear.

Slow down.  There is no ambiguity in the sentence in question.  40,000 scans are expected at NTC to be tallied and verified.  Remove the red highlight, and you might see the ambiguity.  But the highlight is there as part of sentence.  Are you denying that?

There is ambiguity about what exactly to do with the 34Bs.  But because they cannot be changed, one way to reconcile it is that there are 290 constituency election results and 1 final result.  The laws, cases and regulations all seem to suggest one thing or the other without forbidding the other. 

There is understandably some confusion, especially if you are not a lawyer whose day job it is to understand just this particular law.  Ultimately, I think Chebukati should count 34As creating the final result.  The 290 constituency results go into the record too. 

There will be permissible discrepancies due to human error.  Huge discrepancies can make it easy for someone to pinpoint where the problem is and have uses elsewhere like in a petition court.

There is obviously need for clarity in the process.  The new laws should also clarify what happens in the event of a very close election e.g. if Uhuruto lose by one vote.

[vooke]

You would be right minus the part in red.  As it is you are repurposing the plain meaning of the sentence to support your claim.  Both NTC and CTC receive 34As.  This is a legal requirement, not an internal process.

I have nowhere indicated that NTC is not bound to receive forms 34A. That is in the Elections Act and the Regulations.

You need to appreciate that some provisions of the laws came into place before this Kiai case hit High Court. They have been retained but are redundant.

Previously ROs were supposed to go to NTC with both their tallies and station results forms (not sure how they designated them back then). Chairperson was supposed to use both these to declare the final results.

We still have this,except it is in electronic form and no verification whatsoever is expected of the chairperson save constitutional threshold.

Slow down.  There is no ambiguity in the sentence in question.  40,000 scans are expected at NTC to be tallied and verified.  Remove the red highlight, and you might see the ambiguity.  But the highlight is there as part of sentence.  Are you denying that?

If any verification or confirmation is anticipated, it has to relate only to confirmation and verification that the candidate to be declared elected president has met the threshold set under Article 138(4), by receiving more than half of all the votes cast in that election; and at least twenty- five per cent of the votes cast in each of more than half of the counties.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

He declared the election outcome with max 108 34Bs.  3 days after the declaration, August 14th, IEBC still had not released the remaining 182 34Bs.  Court records. 

Whatever else one may call it, a valid declaration is not one of those things.

A few  things
1. It was NASWA which claimed that the chairman declared results without all forms 34B I doubt the claim survived the judgement. IEBC denied this.

2. If they declared the results without all forms 34Bs then the results were at that point unverifiable.

3. My contention is not forms 34B but 34A. NASWA and the judges all lambasted chairperson for declaring without all forms 34A.

On #3 I agree all forms 34A should be transmitted, and this was not done by the time of declaration. What I dispute is the impact of the missing forms. I maintain that the laws as they are, absence of these forms does not affect verifiability of the results. SCOK,NASWA insist they do.

Mwilu was right that Kiai case did not overrule the Elections Act sections that require transmission of forms 34A to NTC, but the chairperson never claimed that it did. That was a strawman. The chairperson simply said the forms were not necessary for the declaration.

It was not denied in court.

Study Kassait's affidavit. I lost some documents in my iPad following the upgrade and it was among them. If you have it, pleas do check it out against Nyangasi's

Kassait's affidavit addresses Nyangasi Oduwo's affidavit.  This particular information about the 108 34Bs is not in Nyangasi Oduwo's affidavit, but in Koitamet Ole Kina's affidavit.  Read the SCOK ruling from end of Pg. 103 to Pg 104.

[vooke]

There is ambiguity about what exactly to do with the 34Bs.  But because they cannot be changed, one way to reconcile it is that there are 290 constituency election results and 1 final result.  The laws, cases and regulations all seem to suggest one thing or the other without forbidding the other. 

There is understandably some confusion, especially if you are not a lawyer whose day job it is to understand just this particular law.  Ultimately, I think Chebukati should count 34As creating the final result.  The 290 constituency results go into the record too. 

Confusion is not just for lawyers. IEBC the very body for whom these laws was made and affect their very core business are or were confused.

There will be permissible discrepancies due to human error.  Huge discrepancies can make it easy for someone to pinpoint where the problem is and have uses elsewhere like in a petition court.

There is obviously need for clarity in the process.  The new laws should also clarify what happens in the event of a very close election e.g. if Uhuruto lose by one vote.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

You would be right minus the part in red.  As it is you are repurposing the plain meaning of the sentence to support your claim.  Both NTC and CTC receive 34As.  This is a legal requirement, not an internal process.

I have nowhere indicated that NTC is not bound to receive forms 34A. That is in the Elections Act and the Regulations.

You need to appreciate that some provisions of the laws came into place before this Kiai case hit High Court. They have been retained but are redundant.

Previously ROs were supposed to go to NTC with both their tallies and station results forms (not sure how they designated them back then). Chairperson was supposed to use both these to declare the final results.

We still have this,except it is in electronic form and no verification whatsoever is expected of the chairperson save constitutional threshold.

Slow down.  There is no ambiguity in the sentence in question.  40,000 scans are expected at NTC to be tallied and verified.  Remove the red highlight, and you might see the ambiguity.  But the highlight is there as part of sentence.  Are you denying that?

If any verification or confirmation is anticipated, it has to relate only to confirmation and verification that the candidate to be declared elected president has met the threshold set under Article 138(4), by receiving more than half of all the votes cast in that election; and at least twenty- five per cent of the votes cast in each of more than half of the counties.

I totally agree with you on the meaning of verification in this context.  It has nothing to do with comparing 34B and 34A.  Zero.  Nada.

My concern is with the bit below and your attempt to interpret it as only allowed vide the 290 ROs and 34Bs.  That is changing the meaining of the plain reading.  With the red part any doubt that 34As are expected at NTC for tallying and verification is contrived.

received at the national tallying centre, without interfering with the figures and details of the outcome of the vote as received from the constituency tallying centre

Therefore the appellant(IEBC) is supposed to receive results at NTC from

(1) the CTCs and 
(2) all the polling stations(34As) and tally and "verify" them(but not 34A verification).

It looks like IEBC needs the transmitted 34As before declaration by the chairman.  There were thousands sill missing days after the declaration.  If you look at IEBC as one entity for this purpose, even if they are relying only on 34Bs, it still means these 34Bs were completed with thousands of 34As still unavailable.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

There is ambiguity about what exactly to do with the 34Bs.  But because they cannot be changed, one way to reconcile it is that there are 290 constituency election results and 1 final result.  The laws, cases and regulations all seem to suggest one thing or the other without forbidding the other. 

You are right there is ambiguity, but you are not reconciling nothing by admitting there are 290 elections with one final.

It reconciles the requirement for NTC to tally and verify only when all Form 34As are in and the fact that 34Bs are final.

Yes it would.  But it would provide less checks and balances.  If NTC uses 34As instead, it could discover that some 34B's may not have incorporated all the relevant 34As.  In addition, I doubt any court would strike out such a declaration based on the primary document, all the confusion notwithstanding.

There is understandably some confusion, especially if you are not a lawyer whose day job it is to understand just this particular law.  Ultimately, I think Chebukati should count 34As creating the final result.  The 290 constituency results go into the record too. 

Confusion is not just for lawyers. IEBC the very body for whom these laws was made and affect their very core business are or were confused.

My point is because it's literally their job description.  There is no excuse for them to not figure this out.  It's not straighforward, but it's hardly the puzzle IEBC makes it out to be.

There will be permissible discrepancies due to human error.  Huge discrepancies can make it easy for someone to pinpoint where the problem is and have uses elsewhere like in a petition court.

There is obviously need for clarity in the process.  The new laws should also clarify what happens in the event of a very close election e.g. if Uhuruto lose by one vote.

34Bs are useful in some contexts.  They can give IEBC useful insight about their operations at the constituency levels.  Maybe some areas are more efficient and more accurate than others.  This is useful information.  Without NTC's own tally, there is nothing to measure them against.

[vooke]

I totally agree with you on the meaning of verification in this context.  It has nothing to do with comparing 34B and 34A.  Zero.  Nada.

So you have now discovered verification is untenable and adopted comparing? Ok. We are making good progress.

My concern is with the bit below and your attempt to interpret it as only allowed vide the 290 ROs and 34Bs.  That is changing the meaining of the plain reading.  With the red part any doubt that 34As are expected at NTC for tallying and verification is contrived.

received at the national tallying centre, without interfering with the figures and details of the outcome of the vote as received from the constituency tallying centre

Therefore the appellant(IEBC) is supposed to receive results at NTC from

(1) the CTCs and 
(2) all the polling stations(34As) and tally and "verify" them(but not 34A verification).

It looks like IEBC needs the transmitted 34As before declaration by the chairman.  There were thousands sill missing days after the declaration.  If you look at IEBC as one entity for this purpose, even if they are relying only on 34Bs, it still means these 34Bs were completed with thousands of 34As still unavailable.

The judges are explaining  electoral laws as per constitution,Elections Act and Regulations. Study the statement immediately befor this to get the context

It is evident to us from the above sequence of events that the role of the Chairperson of the appellant is circumscribed. Article 138 deals with events at the polling stations where votes are counted, tallied, verified and declared. We hold further that reference to the appellant in Sub Article (3)(c) is not to be construed to mean the chairperson but rather, the returning officers who are mandated, after counting the votes in the polling stations, to tally and verify the count and declare the result.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I totally agree with you on the meaning of verification in this context.  It has nothing to do with comparing 34B and 34A.  Zero.  Nada.

So you have now discovered verification is untenable and adopted comparing? Ok. We are making good progress.

I have been in agreement with you on that for quite a few posts.  But better that you finally get it than not, however slowly.

My concern is with the bit below and your attempt to interpret it as only allowed vide the 290 ROs and 34Bs.  That is changing the meaining of the plain reading.  With the red part any doubt that 34As are expected at NTC for tallying and verification is contrived.

received at the national tallying centre, without interfering with the figures and details of the outcome of the vote as received from the constituency tallying centre

Therefore the appellant(IEBC) is supposed to receive results at NTC from

(1) the CTCs and 
(2) all the polling stations(34As) and tally and "verify" them(but not 34A verification).

It looks like IEBC needs the transmitted 34As before declaration by the chairman.  There were thousands sill missing days after the declaration.  If you look at IEBC as one entity for this purpose, even if they are relying only on 34Bs, it still means these 34Bs were completed with thousands of 34As still unavailable.

The judges are explaining  electoral laws as per constitution,Elections Act and Regulations. Study the statement immediately befor this to get the context

I saw, and included, the statement before it, in the original reference to it.  It still doesn't change the plain meaning, even with the added context.

It is evident to us from the above sequence of events that the role of the Chairperson of the appellant is circumscribed. Article 138 deals with events at the polling stations where votes are counted, tallied, verified and declared. We hold further that reference to the appellant in Sub Article (3)(c) is not to be construed to mean the chairperson but rather, the returning officers who are mandated, after counting the votes in the polling stations, to tally and verify the count and declare the result.

Yes.  The other verification that involves he 51% totaland 25% in a number of counties.

We agree on that.  You just don't seem to get it for some reason.

[Omollo]

Nowhere have I read anything from any judge ruling against verification. Nowhere! Chebukati had a duty to verify. What you are or should be asking is what is verification in this case.

Verification is NOT and can never be ALTERATION of the forms of results! It is limited to:
1. Ensuring that the forms / results come from the polling station and Constituency
2. The results / forms are not tampered with based on the security features embedded
3. The results declared at the polling stations are in agreement with or are reflected accurately on the Form 34B
4. The results / forms are legal in that they meet all the statutory requirements and conform to the rules and regulations of the IEBC such as signatures of the POs and ROs
5. etc

What is next?
6. What happens if the above is absent or not complied with?
The IEBC has several options:
A. Discard the results and treat the results a nullity (possibly call a new election in that area)
B. Seek consensus with the parties and if they agree on an option such as allow the forms, then go ahead if they don't revert to A (above)

There is No room for him to alter or purport to correct the forms. It is simply NOT Logical for him to do so. He lacks the basic knowledge to amend.

[Omollo]

Both of you are simply misunderstanding what the judges wrote. There is a huge valley of difference between what they wrote and what you claim they meant.