Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: RV Pundit on June 23, 2017, 10:08:20 AM
-
I am told it's being read. Look like NASA may lose this.
-
NASA has lost the case after IEBC went to court of Apeal.IEBC Chairman is the final Person to declare Presidential election at National tallying Centre....and not at Constituency level as demanded by NASA.
This was so commonsensical - NASA & their groupies like Maina Kiai - just want to look for all excuses when they lose the election.
-
Okay that is from facebook - they are still reading the judgement.
-
Okay that is from facebook - they are still reading the judgement.
I read this while watching the judgement and now I wonder how many other Facebook crap you have fed us
-
Facebook is generally crap. So what judgement.
I read this while watching the judgement and now I wonder how many other Facebook crap you have fed us
-
1. On Jurisdiction: The Court rules in favor of the High court
2. On Res Judicata (matter already judged): Finds against IEBC
-
Well I hope IEBC will appeal to supreme court. In any case I anticipate a lot more chaos if const tallys are final. This won't cure the problem. It will escalate it by factor of 290. We are giving unknown & un-vetted const RO way too much power. The rigging shift to 290 Ros.
1. On Jurisdiction: The Court rules in favor of the High court
2. On Res Judicata (matter already judged): Finds against IEBC
-
It will be very interesting considering the IEBC just told NASA yesterday not to go to court because litigation will delay elections. Plus the IEBC vowed not to go beyond the Appeals Court.
Well I hope IEBC will appeal to supreme court. In any case I anticipate a lot more chaos if const tallys are final. This won't cure the problem. It will escalate it by factor of 290. We are giving unknown & un-vetted const RO way too much power. The rigging shift to 290 Ros.
1. On Jurisdiction: The Court rules in favor of the High court
2. On Res Judicata (matter already judged): Finds against IEBC
-
I really don't know how any judge can rule against the High court judgment. The SC has already spoken on that matter and any change would leave it the laughing stock of the legal fraternity. It would destroy the court for ever.
-
http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2017/06/23/odunga-refuses-to-suspend-al-ghurair-tender-asks-maraga-to-assign_c1585152
-
I thought SC spoke in favour of Chebukati - meaning const results are provisional until declared by Chebukati as pres RO. In any case I foresee scenario where many compromised ROs will declare fake results. That is going to lead to chaos. IEBC should be allowed to do it's job independently. Judiciary should not interfere into it. IEBC knows better. They know the characters they employed as ROs are people with little accountability to anybody. They are no commissioners.
Why have IEBC commissioners? All they do seem to be delegate all authority to secretariat and then wait for final results to announce. It plain useless. They are slowly emasculating it - and leaving chaos in it;s wake.
I really don't know how any judge can rule against the High court judgment. The SC has already spoken on that matter and any change would leave it the laughing stock of the legal fraternity. It would destroy the court for ever.
-
?
-
Some of the pleadings were quite childish. To contest the jurisdiction of the High court in the Appeals court while stating that only the SC has jurisdiction is plainly silly. You are in effect saying that even the court you are before lacks jurisdiction.
-
Now listening in. Is this unanimous or everyone has their own thought. William Ouko now reading.
-
Just ended - everyone has poker face - the ruling seem convoluted.
-
Breaking news - Polling results at polling station will be final. Does that mean presiding officer is now the final man.This is just recipe for chaos. IEBC basically has been emasculated.
-
Breaking news - Polling results at polling station will be final. Does that mean presiding officer is now the final man.
Pundit
The IEBC and Jubilee create their own propaganda and start screaming for no reason.
The ROs are IEBC staff appointed by the same IEBC to conduct elections at the constituency level. The court has found it hard to believe that they are dishonest and not trustworthy.
The vote is counted at the polling station. That is what matters. The rest is dealing with papers. Beyond the polling station there can be no basis to amend, alter, change, verify the count. The ROs can verify etc the forms given to them without altering a number and the same to the IEBC in Nairobi. This is just common sense. Any attempt to give one person power to alter results in our corrupt country has very predictable results.
-
Who cares about IEBC? -it's more about the political contestants and Kenyans at large - are they more or less confident in the IEBC and the elections? As long as there is one presiding officer per polling station no chaos should occur. I can sit in my house and add up 10K stations and come up with the same results as Chebukati - not him to disappear for 2 days "tallying results" behind CLOSED DOORS. No matter how clean you are, doing things behind closed doors raises suspicion.
-
Jubilee are okay with either case - so let concentrate on IEBC.
So assume in my polling station at Kapsengere primary school - the presiding officers count votes - 700 registered votes - he goes ahead to assign .Uhuru 700, Raila 0 - and sign off Form 34 while in reality the papers ballot in the box shows Uhuru got 600 and Raila 100 - what happens. In another polling station - they might even declare 7000 instead of 700.
IEBC just become convey belt of that bad input - all the way?
The current procedure - is Form 34 from presiding officer - triplicate - at RO level - it's counted again & Form 36 is filled - at national tallying center - it checked again & another form filled.
Pundit
The IEBC and Jubilee create their own propaganda and start screaming for no reason.
The ROs are IEBC staff appointed by the same IEBC to conduct elections at the constituency level. The court has found it hard to believe that they are dishonest and not trustworthy.
The vote is counted at the polling station. That is what matters. The rest is dealing with papers. Beyond the polling station there can be no basis to amend, alter, change, verify the count. The ROs can verify etc the forms given to them without altering a number and the same to the IEBC in Nairobi. This is just common sense. Any attempt to give one person power to alter results in our corrupt country has very predictable results.
-
With a transparent process crying wolf will be quite unbecoming. And dismissable. Any polling station with issues can easily be physically recounted. Omollo cannot talk about Safaricom interception rigging center.
Now let us get rid of Al Ghurair and be done with this.
-
With a transparent process crying wolf will be quite unbecoming. And dismissable. Any polling station with issues can easily be physically recounted. Omollo cannot talk about Safaricom interception rigging center.
Now let us get rid of Al Ghurair and be done with this.
In fact that just became even more urgent because the appeals court now placed more emphasis on the electronic results transmitted to the IEBC.
-
You amaze me. National Tallying Center can be scrutinized if the issue is Kivuitu kind of games.But you imagine people in Luo Nyanza or Kikuyu or Kalenjin will be transparent :). The presiding officer, tally clerk and agents are local people. They will collude.In each of stronghold - people will collude and that will be final. Previously the presiding officer would fear the RO - he has go there and explain. Now whatever he does is dried in ink. RO would fear Chebukati. Now everyone is just conveyor belt.
This will be chaos. We will see very funny results. It like opening up it up for rigging bonanza. We have totally emasculated IEBC and left it at whims of presiding officers. Our election will be no different from party primaries...totally corrupt.
Now if I am planning to rig - I first rig my stronghold by asking POs to declare the results I want - and in battleground - it will be battle of who can bribe/buy POs/agents - in meantime Chebukati can go home after he hires POS. He is basically useless.
With a transparent process crying wolf will be quite unbecoming. And dismissable. Any polling station with issues can easily be physically recounted. Omollo cannot talk about Safaricom interception rigging center.
Now let us get rid of Al Ghurair and be done with this.
-
The question without answer has been what formula RO or Chebukati uses to correct the PO's mischief. There are party agents to co-sign the forms. And media cameras and police to stop intimidation of the agents. POs and ROs can be dragged to Supreme Court - and jailed! - as the next step of cleanup. But we should give it a chance and perfect it down the road - instead of now where every Kenyan believes their candidate won.
You amaze me. National Tallying Center can be scrutinized if the issue is Kivuitu kind of games.But you imagine people in Luo Nyanza or Kikuyu or Kalenjin will be transparent :). The presiding officer, tally clerk and agents are local people. They will collude.In each of stronghold - people will collude and that will be final. Previously the presiding officer would fear the RO - he has go there and explain. Now whatever he does is dried in ink. RO would fear Chebukati. Now everyone is just conveyor belt.
This will be chaos. We will see very funny results. It like opening up it up for rigging bonanza. We have totally emasculated IEBC and left it at whims of presiding officers. Our election will be no different from party primaries...totally corrupt.
Now if I am planning to rig - I first rig my stronghold by asking POs to declare the results I want - and in battleground - it will be battle of who can bribe/buy POs/agents - in meantime Chebukati can go home after he hires POS. He is basically useless.
-
Okay go ahead drag 40,000 POs to the supreme court. ROs & Chebukati are emasculated here. This is foolishness of highest order. I'd prefer some rigging that give us some semblance of credible election. But a free for all? What is that gonna do to this country! Makes main election as farcical as party primaries.
The solutions is build in more controls - not to let guys in my polling station do whatever they want - and that is final. If the fear is alteration - why not add more controls - although I think they are sufficent now.
The question without answer has been what formula RO or Chebukati uses to correct the PO's mischief. There are party agents to co-sign the forms. And media cameras and police to stop intimidation of the agents. POs and ROs can be dragged to Supreme Court - and jailed! - as the next step of cleanup. But we should give it a chance and perfect it down the road - instead of now where every Kenyan believes their candidate won.
-
That argument of dragging 290 ROs to the court was raised and dismissed by the court in the judgement. Petitions are not filed against 290 ROs as they are working for the IEBC. The IEBC as a body is composed of among others its officers and functionaries.
Nobody has been emasculated beyond his ability to perform his lawful duties in the conduct of elections. What has been taken away are illegitimate powers and claims to power beyond what is conferred by the constitution.
Okay go ahead drag 40,000 POs to the supreme court. ROs & Chebukati are emasculated here. This is foolishness of highest order. I'd prefer some rigging that give us some semblance of credible election. But a free for all? What is that gonna do to this country! Makes main election as farcical as party primaries.
The solutions is build in more controls - not to let guys in my polling station do whatever they want - and that is final. If the fear is alteration - why not add more controls - although I think they are sufficent now.
The question without answer has been what formula RO or Chebukati uses to correct the PO's mischief. There are party agents to co-sign the forms. And media cameras and police to stop intimidation of the agents. POs and ROs can be dragged to Supreme Court - and jailed! - as the next step of cleanup. But we should give it a chance and perfect it down the road - instead of now where every Kenyan believes their candidate won.
-
I think it's no longer the ROs - it now Polling Station results are final. 290 was going to be some chaos. 40,000 final results is incredible chaos. If this doesn't get altered by Supreme Court - then we will have very interesting election that will probably be overturned for lacking any credibility. And Chebukati will say the judiciary tied his hands.
That argument of dragging 290 ROs to the court was raised and dismissed by the court in the judgement. Petitions are not filed against 290 ROs as they are working for the IEBC. The IEBC as a body is composed of among others its officers and functionaries.
Nobody has been emasculated beyond his ability to perform his lawful duties in the conduct of elections. What has been taken away are illegitimate powers and claims to power beyond what is conferred by the constitution.
-
2007 and 2013 elections should have been overturned and yet we had one presidential RO. I always get very suspicious when people use "chaos" and "order" as arguments for more power. It is very easy to review 41, 000 polling station results if need be but most of the time there will be a pre-trial conference to narrow down which out of 41,000 polling stations that are in dispute. But even if we need to recount in all 41,000 to ensure that peoples choice is respected, then we can do them simultaneously in one day. The notion that expediency overrides everything else is ridiculous to say the least.
I think it's no longer the ROs - it now Polling Station results are final. 290 was going to be some chaos. 40,000 final results is incredible chaos. If this doesn't get altered by Supreme Court - then we will have very interesting election that will probably be overturned for lacking any credibility. And Chebukati will say the judiciary tied his hands.
That argument of dragging 290 ROs to the court was raised and dismissed by the court in the judgement. Petitions are not filed against 290 ROs as they are working for the IEBC. The IEBC as a body is composed of among others its officers and functionaries.
Nobody has been emasculated beyond his ability to perform his lawful duties in the conduct of elections. What has been taken away are illegitimate powers and claims to power beyond what is conferred by the constitution.
-
Who cares about IEBC? -it's more about the political contestants and Kenyans at large - are they more or less confident in the IEBC and the elections? As long as there is one presiding officer per polling station no chaos should occur. I can sit in my house and add up 10K stations and come up with the same results as Chebukati - not him to disappear for 2 days "tallying results" behind CLOSED DOORS. No matter how clean you are, doing things behind closed doors raises suspicion.
That right there is the problem. What does he do with the results to arrive at a different number than what the ROs have given him? How does he know the correct tally in such a scenario?
-
You are an IT guy. So you tell us why we would invest in an expensive result system which takes days to come up with results. FYI do not bet on this one working.
Who cares about IEBC? -it's more about the political contestants and Kenyans at large - are they more or less confident in the IEBC and the elections? As long as there is one presiding officer per polling station no chaos should occur. I can sit in my house and add up 10K stations and come up with the same results as Chebukati - not him to disappear for 2 days "tallying results" behind CLOSED DOORS. No matter how clean you are, doing things behind closed doors raises suspicion.
That right there is the problem. What does he do with the results to arrive at a different number than what the ROs have given him? How does he know the correct tally in such a scenario?
-
You are an IT guy. So you tell us why we would invest in an expensive result system which takes days to come up with results. FYI do not bet on this one working.
Who cares about IEBC? -it's more about the political contestants and Kenyans at large - are they more or less confident in the IEBC and the elections? As long as there is one presiding officer per polling station no chaos should occur. I can sit in my house and add up 10K stations and come up with the same results as Chebukati - not him to disappear for 2 days "tallying results" behind CLOSED DOORS. No matter how clean you are, doing things behind closed doors raises suspicion.
That right there is the problem. What does he do with the results to arrive at a different number than what the ROs have given him? How does he know the correct tally in such a scenario?
From my perspective, the system is irrelevant if Chebukati is allowed to opaquely change the transmitted data anyway. It could be useful if the transmission is to the Constituency ROs from polling stations.
-
The idea that Chebukati is somehow in a position to correct results from lower levels is an interesting one. Who is more likely to have accurate information? Chebukati in Nairobi or the person at the polling station?
Anyways ...
For those thinking of the Supreme Court, the lower courts already referenced the Supreme Court in their decisions. This will help:
The Commission has no power to verify or confirm the results declared by the constituency returning officer. This is what the Supreme Court stated in Joho –v- Shabhal case when considering regulation 83 of the Elections (General) Regulations 2012, section 39 of the Elections Act and Articles 86(b) and (c) of the Constitution:-
“Once the returning officer makes a decision regarding the validity of a ballot or a vote, this decision becomes final, and only challengeable in an election petition. The mandate of the returning officer, according to regulation 83(3), terminates upon the return of the persons – elect to the Commission. The issuance of the certificate in Form 38 to the persons elected indicates the termination of the returning officer’s mandate, thus shifting any issue of validity, to the election court.”
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/133874/
Perhaps the Supreme Court will wiggle around and change what it already stated?
-
For those thinking of the Supreme Court, the lower courts already referenced the Supreme Court in their decisions. This will help:
The Commission has no power to verify or confirm the results declared by the constituency returning officer. This is what the Supreme Court stated in Joho –v- Shabhal case when considering regulation 83 of the Elections (General) Regulations 2012, section 39 of the Elections Act and Articles 86(b) and (c) of the Constitution:-
“Once the returning officer makes a decision regarding the validity of a ballot or a vote, this decision becomes final, and only challengeable in an election petition. The mandate of the returning officer, according to regulation 83(3), terminates upon the return of the persons – elect to the Commission. The issuance of the certificate in Form 38 to the persons elected indicates the termination of the returning officer’s mandate, thus shifting any issue of validity, to the election court.”
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/133874/ (http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/133874/)
Perhaps the Supreme Court will wiggle around and change what it already stated?
I don't put it past them. They could just say this does not apply to the Presidential election.
-
I don't put it past them. They could just say this does not apply to the Presidential election.
This is Kenya, so I too wouldn't put it past them. The challenge for them would be in the fact that the statement is phrased in terms of the validity of ballots/votes, and the constituency returning officer does the counting for all levels:
Regulation 75(2):
(2) The presiding officer shall carry out the counting of votes for the respective elective posts in the following order –
a. president;
b. member of the National Assembly;
c. member of the County Assembly;
d. senator;
e. county woman representative in the National Assembly; and
f. county governor.”
It would be interesting to see an argument to the effect that the constituency returning officer's are final for (b)-(f), because he/she is best placed to make that decision, but that they are not final for (a), even though the same person counts those votes and reports the numbers.
-
NASA has lost the case after IEBC went to court of Apeal.IEBC Chairman is the final Person to declare Presidential election at National tallying Centre....and not at Constituency level as demanded by NASA.
This was so commonsensical - NASA & their groupies like Maina Kiai - just want to look for all excuses when they lose the election.
:D :o :D
-
That is not the issue. IEBC and everyone agree with finality of RO as far as validity of every vote cast - as in valid/invalid/ cast for xyz etc. What Chebukati and Country RO need is powers to re-do the sums of all polling station. Not to just take RO figures - even if there are mathematical errors - like transposition or etc. Chebukati doesn't receive the ballots. They stay with RO. What Chebukati receive is final tally as summed up by RO and all the forms from every polling station. Chebukati then has to re-do the maths - and where he find errors (and they always do find a lot of them) - would ask the RO and agents to correct it - these are mostly mathematical errors due to fatigue or plain mischief- and they are tonnes of them - because RO is working on six elections & by day 2 or 3 is pretty tired - recounting every ballot.
It quite simple.
POs - count all ballots/decide which is valid/invalid - and announce results at polling stations - then submit forms and all ballots materials to ROs at Const Tallying Center.
ROs - re-count, re-examine the ballots and make the final declaration as for validity - tally and submit all the forms. He keeps the ballot boxes in secure places. That is why he the final as far as declaring every individual vote. Not final in tallying.
CROS - retally from all forms and if his tally disagree with ROS..that has to be resolved.
National Tally Center - retally all polling stations - and if his total doesn't agree with ROs - that has to be resolved.
Where is the problem in there? obviously at every stage - forms have to be verified - all signatures checked - serial numbers ticked.
I don't see where complication is coming from. I worked in 02 as IEBC clerk. It pretty straighforward job. Kibaki rigging was brazen and ought to be have caught by any supreme court. Kivuitu didn't rig at tallying center - Ruto & karuas spend nights there - the rigging happen thro compromised ROS - who switched off their phones and disappeared - to later re-appear with results. 2007 rigging did not happen through the national tallying center that is watched keenly by everyone.
Kivuitu didn't steal the vote...he was hapless fool who was forced to announce the results he had no way of verifying. The ROS in central, eastern and kibaki places stole the vote. Now we've empowered them to steal at grand scale because we don't trust ODM life member Chebukait. It tragic. It's laughable. You eliminate extra controls and pray for the best :). Now ROs can even sit down and cook figures - and send Chebukati an SMS :) and that would final.He can proceed to burn the warehouse where he keep ballots boxes and that is it.
The idea that Chebukati is somehow in a position to correct results from lower levels is an interesting one. Who is more likely to have accurate information? Chebukati in Nairobi or the person at the polling station?
Anyways ...
For those thinking of the Supreme Court, the lower courts already referenced the Supreme Court in their decisions. This will help:
The Commission has no power to verify or confirm the results declared by the constituency returning officer. This is what the Supreme Court stated in Joho –v- Shabhal case when considering regulation 83 of the Elections (General) Regulations 2012, section 39 of the Elections Act and Articles 86(b) and (c) of the Constitution:-
“Once the returning officer makes a decision regarding the validity of a ballot or a vote, this decision becomes final, and only challengeable in an election petition. The mandate of the returning officer, according to regulation 83(3), terminates upon the return of the persons – elect to the Commission. The issuance of the certificate in Form 38 to the persons elected indicates the termination of the returning officer’s mandate, thus shifting any issue of validity, to the election court.”
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/133874/
Perhaps the Supreme Court will wiggle around and change what it already stated?
-
That is not the issues. IEBC and everyone agree with finality of RO as far as validity of every vote cast - as in valid/invalid/ cast for xyz etc. What Chebukati and Country RO need is powers to re-do the sums of all polling station. Not to just take RO figures - even if there are mathematical errors - like transposition or etc. Chebukati doesn't receive the ballots. They stay with RO. What Chebukati receive is final tally as summed up by RO and all the forms from every polling station. Chebukati then has to re-do the maths - and where he find errors - would ask the RO and agents to correct it - these are mathematical errors- and they are tonnes of it - because RO is working on six elections & by day 2 or 3 is pretty tired.
You might want to read the ruling carefully to see why it is an issue and why the lower court made a big deal of it.
Anyways ...
If all agree "agree with finality of RO as far as validity of every vote", and it is only those votes deemed valid by the returning officers that are counted and the number reported to the IEBC, then what exactly has the IEBC arguing about in court?
Just taking red out of that paragraph as another questionable point: how would Chebukati know that some figures had been transposed?
Also, Chebukati must not be allowed to go back to the returning officers and ask for "corrections", nor can the returning officers be allowed to make "corrections". Otherwise, it is possible to then have a situation where results are publicly declared but then there is some back-and-forth that allows for "adjustments" and mischief. The lower court was correct to determine that once a returning officer has declared a number, any problems are for the Election Court to sort out.
In that case, the challenge---and it doesn't seem like a bit one---is for the IEBC to make sure that those hired as returning officers can do their sums and also double-check them. This is simple arithmetic, not advanced abstract algebra.
-
National Tally Center - retally all polling stations - and if his total doesn't agree with ROs - that has to be resolved.
You lost me there. Perhaps I have missed it: Under what regulation or law does the "National Tally Center" work with re-tally numbers from all polling stations? As far as I can tell, what this "Centre" does, for presidential elections, is do the sums on figures from the 290 constituency returning officers.
-
Results are announced at many stage. At polling station. At Const Tallying Center. At the Country Tallying Center and finally at National Tallying center. The finality of PORK ought to be at National Tallying center.
Polling stations results cannot become final otherwise POs has to keep the ballots boxes secure incase of a dispute.If he makes final declaration and he has no ballot papers to back it up - he can always says that is what we counted!!
Const RO keep the ballots boxes in sealed boxes - and therefore announce the "final" results.
But they can introduce errors while tallying. That is why Chebukati demands for all forms. RIght from what he received from Polling station. His retallying of every polling station and of course the totals as tallied & announced at ROs.
All these are provisional until chebukaiti comb through - make sure they meet all criteria - for example if he discovers polling station x votes exceed the registered votes - and the RO didn't catch it - the law says - those votes have to be ignored.
Chebukati and Ros should be allowed to make corrections. As long as they are documented in different forms. And that is what happens. National tallying center - they don't alter the original forms. They keep them. They alteration they made is kept. If you dispute you have a paper trail.
Where rigging happens and will happen is RO...coz he is the guy who keeps the ballot boxes..so if he rigs..he has to open the seals, make sure the papers in their tally, re-seal and everything is done deal. You're giving them unfettered powers. Let us at least verify and re-tallying their aggregates.
You might want to read the ruling carefully to see why it is an issue and why the lower court made a big deal of it.
Anyways ...
If all agree "agree with finality of RO as far as validity of every vote", and it is only those votes deemed valid by the returning officers that are counted and the number reported to the IEBC, then what exactly has the IEBC arguing about in court?
Just taking red out of that paragraph as another questionable point: how would Chebukati know that some figures had been transposed?
Also, Chebukati must not be allowed to go back to the returning officers and ask for "corrections", nor can the returning officers be allowed to make "corrections". Otherwise, it is possible to then have a situation where results are publicly declared but then there is some back-and-forth that allows for "adjustments" and mischief. The lower court was correct to determine that once a returning officer has declared a number, any problems are for the Election Court to sort out.
In that case, the challenge---and it doesn't seem like a bit one---is for the IEBC to make sure that those hired as returning officers can do their sums.
-
Chebukaiti has to receive all the form 34s - from every polling station -as filled by POS - and then same forms as filled by ROS- and then total (another form -36 or something) - and verify each and everyone of them - in presence of agents & observers - and where there is difference btw PO/ROS - that has to documented (signatures of agents/observers etc) - and of course the tallying by ROS is not final- Chebukait has to redo the tallying again!
RO is only final in as far as he knows who voted for who because he keeps the ballots boxes. And in case of any dispute - he provides them to court - and they are opened and a judge can sit through re-counting - and he can explain why he made xyz valid for w or Q or invalid.
You lost me there. Perhaps I have missed it: Under what regulation or law does the "National Tally Center" work with re-tally numbers from all polling stations? As far as I can tell, what this "Centre" does, for presidential elections, is do the sums on figures from the 290 constituency returning officers.
-
His retallying of every polling station and of course the totals as tallied & announced at ROs.
Again, and I repeat that I might possibly have missed it: under what regulation or law would he go around doing that [for presidential elections].
All these are provisional until chebukaiti comb through - make sure they meet all criteria - for example if he discovers polling station x votes exceed the registered votes - and the RO didn't catch it - the law says - those votes have to be ignored.
Maybe I missed it, but which law says that? Give us a direct reference: Act or Constitution or whatever, Part, Section, etc. We can then continue the discussion on the basis of facts that all can readily verify.
-
There you start with you ignorance. Why not google stuff. Why not do you homework. I am software engineer. I didn't study law but I do my homework. Easy - constitution - election laws - Iebc act - iebc regulations - and you're pretty much done.
His retallying of every polling station and of course the totals as tallied & announced at ROs.
Again, and I repeat that I might possibly have missed it: under what regulation or law would he go around doing that [for presidential elections].
All these are provisional until chebukaiti comb through - make sure they meet all criteria - for example if he discovers polling station x votes exceed the registered votes - and the RO didn't catch it - the law says - those votes have to be ignored.
Maybe I missed it, but which law says that? Give us a direct reference: Act or Constitution or whatever, Part, Section, etc. We can then continue the discussion on the basis of facts that all can readily verify.
-
There you start with you ignorance. Why not google stuff. Why not do you homework. I am software engineer. I didn't study law but I do my homework. Easy - constitution - election laws - Iebc act - iebc regulations - and you're pretty much done.
No need to be rude. You stated that the law says this and that. I asked you which law. Now you claim not to know because you are a software engineer? If you are unable to tell us which law you are referring to, because you did not study law, then it would be better that in the first place you do not make claims that the law says this and that.
Now, as a matter of fact, not even the IEBC has in court made the claims that you are making, and one presumes that their representatives in court did study law.
-
Do your homework. Google. That is what we software engineers do. Help ignorant people look smart.
No need to be rude. You stated that the law says this and that. I asked you which law. Now you claim not to know because you are a software engineer? If you are unable to tell us which law you are referring to, because you did not study law, then it would be better that in the first place you do not make claims that the law says this and that.
Now, as a matter of fact, not even the IEBC has in court made the claims that you are making, and one presumes that their representatives in court did study law.
-
Do your homework. Google. That is what we software engineers do. Help ignorant people look smart.
No kidding. That is what software engineers do. And you are a software engineer. And you are asking me to use Google? :D
Oh, I have gone already through " constitution - election laws - Iebc act - iebc regulations". As I have said, I might have missed the laws you claim are applicable. I was hoping you would help with that one.
-
Quick google search - IEBC regulation of 2013 - tallied returns from polling stations in which the votes allegedly cast exceeded the number of registered voters contrary to Regulation 83 of the Regulations;
In short IEBC regulation (which is law) - for example - 83- says polling station with cast votes exceeding registered votes cannot be tallied.
Do your homework. Google. That is what we software engineers do. Help ignorant people look smart.
No kidding. That is what software engineers do. And you are a software engineer. And you are asking me to use Google? :D
Oh, I have gone already through " constitution - election laws - Iebc act - iebc regulations". As I have said, I might have missed the laws you claim are applicable. I was hoping you would help with that one.
-
Still struggling - try here https://www.iebc.or.ke/uploads/resources/WxjVuUP8E1.pdf
Here is what IEBC requires the FINAL MAN RO to do which is the bone of contention here.
83. (1)Immediately after the results of the poll
from all polling stations in a constituency have been
received by the returning officer, the returning officer
shall, in the presence of candidates or agents and
observers, if present—
(a) tally the final results from each polling
station in a constituency for the election of
a member of the National Assembly and
members of the county assembly,
(b) disregard the results of the count of a
polling station where the total valid votes
exceeds the number of registered voters in
that polling station;
(c) disregard the results of the count of a
polling station where the total votes
exceeds the total number of voters who
turned out to vote in that polling station;
(d) collate and publicly announce to the
persons present the results from each
polling station in the constituency for the
election of the President, county Governor
Senator and county women representative
to the National Assembly;
(e) complete the relevant Form 35B and 36B
for the respective elective position set out
in the Schedule in which the returning
officer shall declare, as the case may be,
the—
(i) name of the respective electoral
area;
(ii) total number of registered voters;
(iii) votes cast for each candidate or
referendum side in each polling
station;
(iv) number of rejected votes in each
polling station;
(v) aggregate number of votes cast in
the respective electoral area; and
(vi) aggregate number of rejected votes;
(f) sign and date the relevant forms and
publicly declare the results for the position
of—
(i) member of County Assembly;
(ii) member of National Assembly; and
(g) issue certificates to persons elected in the
county assembly and National Assembly
elections in Forms 36C and 35C
respectively set out in the Schedule;
(h) deliver to the county returning officer the
collated results for the election of the
county Governor, Senator and county
women representative to the National
Assembly; and
(i) deliver to the Chairperson of the
Commission the collated results for the
election of the President to the national
tallying centre.
(4) The Chairperson of the Commission shall
tally and verify the results received at the national
tallying cent
-
Still struggling - try here https://www.iebc.or.ke/uploads/resources/WxjVuUP8E1.pdf
That is certainly an admirable attempt. And you found it even though you did not study law! :D But we stil have a little problem: you seem to have some difficulty in reading. Your statements were that
National Tally Center - retally all polling stations - and if his total doesn't agree with ROs - that has to be resolved.
and that
All these are provisional until chebukaiti comb through - make sure they meet all criteria - for example if he discovers polling station x votes exceed the registered votes - and the RO didn't catch it - the law says - those votes have to be ignored.
So what I wanted information on: the laws that allow Chebukati and the National Polling Centre to go around doing this or that, as claimed by you, with numbers from polling stations.
Now carefully read what you have just given us:
83. (1)Immediately after the results of the poll from all polling stations in a constituency have been received by the returning officer, the returning officer shall, in the presence of candidates or agents and observers, if present—
(a) tally the final results from each polling station in a constituency for the election of a member of the National Assembly and members of the county assembly,
(b) disregard the results of the count of a polling station where the total valid votes exceeds the number of registered voters in that polling station;
(c) disregard the results of the count of a polling station where the total votes exceeds the total number of voters who
turned out to vote in that polling station;
(d) collate and publicly announce to the persons present the results from each polling station in the constituency for the election of the President, county Governor Senator and county women representative to the National Assembly;
....
And just to clarify any doubts about who all of that refers to, it cannot possibly be the National Tallying Centre or Chebukati, because that person is then required to:
(e) complete the relevant Form 35B and 36B for the respective elective position set out in the Schedule in which the returning officer shall declare, as the case may be,
...
(h) deliver to the county returning officer the collated results for the election of the county Governor, Senator and county women representative to the National Assembly; and
(i) deliver to the Chairperson of the Commission the collated results for the election of the President to the national tallying centre.
In fine, what you claim applies to the National Tallying Centre and Chebukati appears to be applicable only to the constituency returning officer. We now give you the opportunity to have another go, with another law, or to help us uderstand what we have missed above.
-
Okay this is just too much foolishness on a friday. You want me to help with English comprehension too?. What hell does verify means to you. If not verify that RO did follows the IEBC regulations. Ohoo boy read the entire IEBC regulation. Look at form 34 (abcd or z) go to form 35/36.They are all annexed there. The entire election procedure is starring right at you. Jesus - how obtuse can you be. I am off to the bar now.
-
Okay this is just too much foolishness on a friday. You want me to help with English comprehension too?. What hell does verify means to you. If not verify that RO did follows the IEBC regulations. Ohoo boy read the entire IEBC regulation. Look at form 34 (abcd or z) go to form 35/36.They are all annexed there. The entire election procedure is starring right at you. Jesus - how obtuse can you be. I am off to the bar now.
Again, the rudeness does not help. You claimed that certain laws allow the National Tallying Centre and Chebukati to do this and that with figures from polling stations---retallying, rejecting and whatever. I asked you which laws. You gave us something, and I commented on that. I think all can see that.
I did look at the annexed forms. Perhaps I missed something. Which particular forms do you have in mind, and how do they support your story?
-
The idea behind the final result at Constituency was exactly what Pundit is touching but from the opposite side.
If results are found to exceed the number of registered voters:
A. Pundit wants Chebukati to fix it so that the final figure is well within the upper limit of the registered voters
B. Maina wants that as evidence of electoral malpractice that should be looked in to and perhaps discover other maleficence
Here is how one can look at it
A = a cover up of illegality
B = Can in the long run serve as a deterrent
-
So if I am RO of this bar - and I fill form 34 (C) - and claim more people are here than what IEBC have in the database - what do you think chebukati should do. The IEBC regulation say he verify. If that is not the case - I have heard they ask RO/Agents who accompanied him/her to get into a small room and figure that out - otherwise they have to reject that polling station.
If alteration are made or someone is allowed to vote while his name is not in register but PO believe he is or whatever...IEBC have AFFIDAVITS that XYZ will fill and sign. If for example RO re-do the maths in tallying center and discover indeed he made an error - he is given an affidavit to fill saying - explaining why.
I don't know why you want chebukati to just become conveyor belt of any crap.
I did look at the annexed forms. Perhaps I missed something. Which particular forms do you have in mind, and how do they support your story?
-
Not to interfere with a vibrant debate I noted this:
(i) deliver to the Chairperson of the Commission the collated results for the election of the President to the national tallying centre.
I am awaiting the CoA Judgment but I recall (vaguely) the Judges saying this requirement was totally obsolete where there is technology that transmits the results.
-
Again not to butt in to much:
The Judges urged Chebukati to only employ people of the highest integrity.
So if I am RO of this bar - and I fill form 34 (C) - and claim more people are here than what IEBC have in the database - what do you think chebukati should do. The IEBC regulation say he verify. If that is not the case - I have heard they ask RO/Agents who accompanied him/her to get into a small room and figure that out - otherwise they have to reject that polling station.
If alteration are made or someone is allowed to vote while his name is not in register but PO believe he is or whatever...IEBC have AFFIDAVITS that XYZ will fill and sign. If for example RO re-do the maths in tallying center and discover indeed he made an error - he is given an affidavit to fill saying - explaining why.
I don't know why you want chebukati to just become conveyor belt of any crap.
I did look at the annexed forms. Perhaps I missed something. Which particular forms do you have in mind, and how do they support your story?
-
You are mis-characterizing again deliberately. If there are mathematical errors- like some dyslexic RO mixes numbers instead of 37 he writes 73...he should be allowed to correct and he should file an affidavit explaining why he made the correction..they are aggregate...what is final is what is sealed in the ballot box. That is final. Whatever chebukait play with is basically aggregate. If whatever is in the box - is wrong - and is not due to tallying errors - then those results ought to be rejected - as rejected votes - and somebody think they are significant errors - they can fill a petition. If it's minor error here and there that seem fair - no big deal - this is a huge human endavour - 41,000 polling stations - with nearly 200,000 staff or more.
The idea behind the final result at Constituency was exactly what Pundit is touching but from the opposite side.
If results are found to exceed the number of registered voters:
A. Pundit wants Chebukati to fix it so that the final figure is well within the upper limit of the registered voters
B. Maina wants that as evidence of electoral malpractice that should be looked in to and perhaps discover other maleficence
Here is how one can look at it
A = a cover up of illegality
B = Can in the long run serve as a deterrent
-
So if I am RO of this bar - and I fill form 34 (C) - and claim more people are here than what IEBC have in the database - what do you think chebukati should do. The IEBC regulation say he verify. If that is not the case - I have heard they ask RO/Agents who accompanied him/her to get into a small room and figure that out - otherwise they have to reject that polling station.
If alteration are made or someone is allowed to vote while his name is not in register but PO believe he is or whatever...IEBC have AFFIDAVITS that XYZ will fill and sign. If for example RO re-do the maths in tallying center and discover indeed he made an error - he is given an affidavit to fill saying - explaining why.
I don't know why you want chebukati to just become conveyor belt of any crap.
First, there is problem with any "verify", and the present legal fisticuffs are partly about that. But that doesn't matter for our purposes here. So, to simplify this argument, let us accept that the IEBC has the power to verify whatever. Now, the standard definition of "verify" is that it means to "confirm", or "substantiate", or .... There is nothing in the definition includes any sort of remedial action. Therefore, at best, Chebukati may have the power to say (confirm) that the numbers add up or that they don't (not confirm). I don't see how that form or the bits of regulation you have given us gives him the power to reject anything, as you have claimed in:
All these are provisional until chebukaiti comb through - make sure they meet all criteria - for example if he discovers polling station x votes exceed the registered votes - and the RO didn't catch it - the law says - those votes have to be ignored.
In fact, there is actually no allowance in Form 34C for him to even indicate that he disagrees with any numbers.
Blue: I can't comment on what you have heard; I can only comment on what law says. Still, one of the things that should be prevented at all costs is that of someone in Nairobi being able to ask constituency returning officers to go into a small room and come up with new numbers.
You still repeat the claim that
otherwise they have to reject that polling station.
I thought we had gone through this. If by "they" you mean the constituency returning officers, then, yes, it appears that they have that power; and there is an explicit regulation to suggest that. But I have yet to see anything to support the claim that Chebukati and his Commission also have the same power.
I don't know why you want chebukati to just become conveyor belt of any crap.
It has nothing to do with what I want or anyone else wants. It is about what the law says (and to the extent that any such law is consistent with the constitution).
-
You are mis-characterizing again deliberately. If there are mathematical errors- like some dyslexic RO mixes numbers instead of 37 he writes 73...he should be allowed to correct and he should file an affidavit explaining why he made the correction..they are aggregate...what is final is what is sealed in the ballot box. That is final.
Before I make a substantive comment on that one, may I ask what regulation or law or whatever would permit a returning officer to do that in such a (hypothetical) case after he/she has already submitted results.
-
Chebukati is discovering that people don't trust the "new" IEBC. Poor guy didn't realize what he was getting into. He has cut weight.
Again not to butt in to much:
The Judges urged Chebukati to only employ people of the highest integrity.
-
Just finished reading the ruling: http://www.judiciary.go.ke/portal/blog/post/court-of-appeal-judgment-on-presidential-tally-case
It is worth a careful read, because it is very mindful of the context in which all this is taking place---the historical mischief at the "national tallying centre", the intent of the new constitution, the Kriegler stuff, etc.
Perhaps those who disagree with it will identify those bits they find problematic and on what basis.
-
Its ok for Pundit to disagree with the judges decision but all these issues were litigated and the judges have made the correct decision in my view. Let us move on to the ballot printing matter.
-
Just finished reading the ruling: http://www.judiciary.go.ke/portal/blog/post/court-of-appeal-judgment-on-presidential-tally-case (http://www.judiciary.go.ke/portal/blog/post/court-of-appeal-judgment-on-presidential-tally-case)
It is worth a careful read, because it is very mindful of the context in which all this is taking place---the historical mischief at the "national tallying centre", the intent of the new constitution, the Kriegler stuff, etc.
Perhaps those who disagree with it will identify those bits they find problematic and on what basis.
It's very detailed and convincing. This SCOK will be well advised to maybe just keep a safe distance from this case. They can't change it without looking bad.
-
Pundit, relax and read the opinion. All those issues were addressed in the arguments before the court. Election fraud is a very serious crime and in the unlikely event that the scenario you just described occurs, I'd rather it be handled by court instead of chabukati behind closed doors at Bomas of Kenya. I say unlikely because Nasa will also have its agents at the polls to sign-off.
Jubilee are okay with either case - so let concentrate on IEBC.
So assume in my polling station at Kapsengere primary school - the presiding officers count votes - 700 registered votes - he goes ahead to assign .Uhuru 700, Raila 0 - and sign off Form 34 while in reality the papers ballot in the box shows Uhuru got 600 and Raila 100 - what happens. In another polling station - they might even declare 7000 instead of 700.
IEBC just become convey belt of that bad input - all the way?
The current procedure - is Form 34 from presiding officer - triplicate - at RO level - it's counted again & Form 36 is filled - at national tallying center - it checked again & another form filled.
Pundit
The IEBC and Jubilee create their own propaganda and start screaming for no reason.
The ROs are IEBC staff appointed by the same IEBC to conduct elections at the constituency level. The court has found it hard to believe that they are dishonest and not trustworthy.
The vote is counted at the polling station. That is what matters. The rest is dealing with papers. Beyond the polling station there can be no basis to amend, alter, change, verify the count. The ROs can verify etc the forms given to them without altering a number and the same to the IEBC in Nairobi. This is just common sense. Any attempt to give one person power to alter results in our corrupt country has very predictable results.
-
I am struggling mightily to rule out that Chebukati is not averse to appointing himself returning officer for each of the 290 constituencies. That he won't turn his current ROs to be messengers. Whatever would stop him I am sure it has nothing to do with moral rectitude.
-
This Wafula Chebukati - is he really ODM life member or is that Pundit's spin?
I am struggling mightily to rule out that Chebukati is not averse to appointing himself returning officer for each of the 290 constituencies. That he won't turn his current ROs to be messengers. Whatever would stop him I am sure it has nothing to do with moral rectitude.
-
This Wafula Chebukati - is he really ODM life member or is that Pundit's spin?
I am struggling mightily to rule out that Chebukati is not averse to appointing himself returning officer for each of the 290 constituencies. That he won't turn his current ROs to be messengers. Whatever would stop him I am sure it has nothing to do with moral rectitude.
I don't know his history. Pundit uses tribe to make judgments of everybody. It doesn't work like that with government operatives though.
-
William Ruto is life member number 3 of ODM.
This Wafula Chebukati - is he really ODM life member or is that Pundit's spin?
As the August 8 election date draws nearer, all eyes will be on Mr Wafula Wanyonyi Chebukati - the newly appointed IEBC Chairman and the man who will be leading the country through a General Election expected to be one of the most hotly contested polls.
The Story of New IEBC Chairman Wafula Chebukati
THIS MAN
Little was known about Mr Chebukati until President Uhuru Kenyatta nominated him for the IEBC Chairperson's post and was thereafter confirmed for the position after he was vetted and approved by Parliament. Kenyans.co.ke has conducted a background check and compiled more information about
the new IEBC chairman.
1. Education Background
Mr Chebukati graduated from the University of Nairobi with a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) degree in 1985 and was admitted to the roll of Advocates in 1986. The new IEBC boss also holds a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) that he attained in 2014 from the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT).
2. Has a Law Firm
Having been enlisted in the roll of advocates in 1986 and practised law for over 30 years, Mr Chebukati has a law firm known as Cootow & Associates Advocates.
The firm offers one-stop shop legal services ranging from maritime to shipping, company secretary to aviation laws, arbitration, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) insurance to banking and commercial law practices. Mr Chebukati has specialised in legal practice in the fields of International commerce, trade and investment law, Corporate law, governance and environmental law.
3. Vied for Saboti Parliamentary Seat in 2007
While appearing in Parliament for vetting, Mr Chebukati divulged that he vied for the Saboti parliamentary seat in 2007.
Unfortunately, he lost to the current Water Cabinet Secretary Eugene Wamalwa who vied for the seat on a Party of National Unity (PNU) ticket. Since then, he has never sought a political seat.
4. Quit ODM Party a Few Weeks Before Applying for IEBC Job
The lawyer had been a life member of the Orange party but only quit a few weeks before he applied for the IEBC post.
“Prior to this appointment, I resigned as a life member of the Orange Democratic Movement Party and I am currently not a member of any political party,” IEBC Chairperson declared.
5. Despite Being ODM Member, Chebukati Last Met Odinga in 2007 The IEBC boss refuted claims that he enjoyed a good relationship with ODM leader Raila Odinga. Chebukati surprised the house committee when he claimed that he had never met the Opposition leader since 2007.
“I last met the ODM leader in 2007, when he came to Saboti during the 2007 General Election campaigns, together with Honourable (William) Ruto, and the other Pentagon Members. They came, they campaigned and they left and that is the last time I interacted with Right Honourable Raila, I have not met him up to now and that is the position,” he told the House team
6. Chebukati’s law firm is Accused of Making Nairobi County lose Sh325 Million Chebukati’s law firm, Cootow & Associates, was sucked into a dispute over the ownership of Westlands market.
The firm officially represented the Nairobi City County Government in the case between City Hall and Salima Enterprises, but the firm did not defend the suit, leading the county to lose the case. Consequently, the plaintiff sought a Sh325 Million compensation which the county agreed to pay. However, Chebukati’s law firm was exonerated after the court ruled that Nairobi County failed to produce evidence showing the law firm failed to defend the case.
7. He Separated From his Family in 2008
Mr Chebukati told the House Committee that he was separated from his family during the 2007-08 post-election violence. He also vowed never to try his luck at politics after he witnessed several cases of electoral malpractice and the pain he endured with his family after the 2007 polls.
8. Chebukati was Philip Kinisu's Lawyer
The IEBC boss was the legal representative for former Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) chairman Philip Kinisu who resigned amid pressure over his alleged involvement in the infamous National Youth Service (NYS) scandal. Mr Kinisu's company is alleged to have fraudulently received sh35 Million from NYS.
9. Expert in Golf
The lawyer has a particular interest in golf and has served as the Captain and chairman of both Mombasa and Nyali Golf clubs.
Currently, Mr Chebukati is a member of the Kenya Golfing Society.
10. Promise to Kenyans After he was Appointed IEBC Boss
In his acceptance speech after being sworn in, Mr Chebukati pledged to conduct a free, fair, credible and transparent election on August 8, adding that his team will not repeat the mistakes that led to disputed elections in the past.
"Our short-term goal is to deliver a free, fair and credible election which is 200 days away. We must, therefore, hit the ground running by ensuring all the processes and systems involved are in place," said Chebukati
-
Robina
Pundit is taunting NASA. Ruto met Chebukati and the Maa guy to size them up. He then decided to go with Chebukati. Nobody knows what deal they made.
The information we have is that Ruto talks to Chebukati daily and Chebukati is grateful to Ruto. Uhuru's "man" in the IEBC is Consolata Nkanatha Butcher Maina - who is the real power in the iEBC.
Pundit is is taunting NASA because they believe Raila appointed Hassan and then Hassan turned against him; Now they say Chebukati is an ODM member (something Pundit knows cannot be true for an IEBC commissioner / Chair) and yet he is working against NASA. It is a childish taunt that he enjoys.
When done with that he claims that Oswago came from Siaya and was put in place to steal the elections for Raila.
No sooner is he done with that than he returns to call me a rumor monger, propagandist etc!
-
He was until he applied for IEBC job. He contested for MP seat in 2007 - in ODM - and lost - but remain an ODM life member since then. Chebukaiti is hapless fellow - CEO ran IEBC secretariat - ROs have always been the guys who rig election - and now they have unfettered powers to do so.
Chebukait is figure head who will take the blame from all bitter loses come 2017 - fom MCA to PORK(Raila).
This Wafula Chebukati - is he really ODM life member or is that Pundit's spin?
-
National Tallying Center is not closed door. It most observed and monitored tallying center. I don't know how you guys plan to monitor polling station in insecure 2/3 of kenya....from Kitale to turkana.. from Meru to Moyale...from mwingi to mandera...from malindi to lamu...that is where GoK will basically have a field day. Uhuru is already assured of 43-44% of vote from GEMA+Kalenjin - he just need 1.5m votes from rest of the country - his rigging plan is not easy - nobody in Nairobi will notice anything a miss - just budget unga 5B for ROs...each RO get 100M & security to kick out NASA agents - declare final results. You go to SCOK and chebukati says summon all the 290s and ask them questions.
Pundit, relax and read the opinion. All those issues were addressed in the arguments before the court. Election fraud is a very serious crime and in the unlikely event that the scenario you just described occurs, I'd rather it be handled by court instead of chabukati behind closed doors at Bomas of Kenya. I say unlikely because Nasa will also have its agents at the polls to sign-off.
-
Uhuruto do not need to rig anything, you do them a disservice. You tell us Ruto is a force of nature then he needs to rig?? This is for posterity not just 2017. In any case the rigging opportunity in 2/3 insecure Kenya already existed. This just eliminates the extra layer of mischief at Bomas.
National Tallying Center is not closed door. It most observed and monitored tallying center. I don't know how you guys plan to monitor polling station in insecure 2/3 of kenya....from Kitale to turkana.. from Meru to Moyale...from mwingi to mandera...from malindi to lamu...that is where GoK will basically have a field day. Uhuru is already assured of 43-44% of vote from GEMA+Kalenjin - he just need 1.5m votes from rest of the country - his rigging plan is not easy - nobody in Nairobi will notice anything a miss - just budget unga 5B for ROs...each RO get 100M & security to kick out NASA agents - declare final results. You go to SCOK and chebukati says summon all the 290s and ask them questions.