Press Release - 10th July 2017 - Procurement of Presidential Ballot Papers #Ballot2017 pic.twitter.com/jGqexcKJzd
— IEBC (@IEBCKenya) July 10, 2017
May they do no such thing. Simply retender and postpone the elections. The sky won't cave.
May they do no such thing. Simply retender and postpone the elections. The sky won't cave.
146. Next, we will answer the question whether the IEBC was otherwise obsessed with giving the tender to the 1st Interested Party and conducted the whole process with a pre-determined decision to award it to them. If the Applicant can successfully demonstrate this, it would, in essence, have shown bias by the IEBC in the award of the tender hence making the decision susceptible to quashing for being administratively unfair.
147. The Applicant argues that the manner in which the whole tendering process was done leaves no doubt in the mind of any reasonable person objectively considering the process that the whole process “was symptomatic of bias and irrationality on the part of the IEBC in favour of the 1 interested party............
.......155. However, we do not think the test of bias is so loose that one can simply say that apprehension by some political parties that the tendering process was not impartial, without more, would meet the threshold. While it is not necessary to prove actual bias, the circumstances, facts and evidence must unmistakably point to likelihood of bias or actual bias or form a clear basis for the conclusion that a reasonable perception of likely bias is warranted.
156. In this case, the circumstances, facts and evidence placed before us do not lead to the conclusion that there was bias or that the tender process was carried in such a way that it was result-oriented and carefully tended to ensure the only outcome was that the 1st Interested Party will end up with the tender.
This is the judgment being lambasted and one of the three judges pilloried by Uhuru Kenyatta. Pity you should find anything worth highlighting
NASA has achieved its objectives.
NASA is making no noise.
Pundit jubilee is free to award the contract back to Al Ghurair. Ruto will store the ballots and transport them. His company got the contract. Would be terrible if it was done by Specter.
NASA objective is to discredit IEBC. And the courts are helping them achieving this objective. It upon IEBC to realize whatever they do - NASA - will not accept it - but they have a job to deliver credible, free and fair election on the 9th August and let the chips fall wherever.NASA has achieved its objectives.
NASA is making no noise.
Pundit jubilee is free to award the contract back to Al Ghurair. Ruto will store the ballots and transport them. His company got the contract. Would be terrible if it was done by Specter.
NASA objective is to discredit IEBC. And the courts are helping them achieving this objective. It upon IEBC to realize whatever they do - NASA - will not accept it - but they have a job to deliver credible, free and fair election on the 9th August and let the chips fall wherever.I could have asked you to offer some proof of that claim but knowing you will not, I opt to address those claims:
70. What I understand by that position that if a Court of law has pronounced itself on a matter and the parties view that as the correct legal position, there ought to be no valid objection to the same Court entertaining a subsequent matter in which similar issues are involved if the parties insist that the Court must do so. Where the parties are of he view that the matter in controversy has been decided, save for the option of an appeal where one is provided, parties are expected to order their lives in accordance with the said decision since courts of law are meant to set the law straight so that litigants may predict the outcome of their actions and either avoid taking a particular course or order their lives in accordance therewith. Therefore where the Court has pronounced itself on a matter, parties to the subsequent proceedings where the legal issues are similar ought not to seek that the same be heard by different judges in the hope of obtaining a different outcome.
A litigant seeking disqualification of a Judge from sitting on the ground of appearance of bias must raise the objection at the earliest opportunity...The right to object to a disqualified adjudicator may be waived, and this may be so, even where the disqualification is statutory. The Court normally insists that the objection shall be taken as soon as the party prejudiced knows the facts, which entitle him to object. If, after he or his advisors know of the disqualification, they let the proceedings to continue without protest, they are held to have waived their objection and the determination cannot be challenged...A litigant who has knowledge of the facts that give rise to apprehension of possibility of bias ought not to be permitted to keep his objection up the sleeve until he finds that he has not succeeded. The court must guard against litigants who all too often blame their losses in court cases to bias on the part of the Judge. Success or failure of the government or any other litigant is neither ground for praise or for condemnation of a court. What is important is whether the decisions are good in law, and whether they are justifiable in relation to the reasons given for them. There is a fundamental tendency for the decisions of the Courts with which there is disagreement to be attacked by impugning the integrity of the Judges, rather than by examining the reasons for the judgement. Decisions of our courts are not immune from criticism but political discontent or dissatisfaction with the outcome of the case is no justification for recklessly attacking the integrity of judicial officer
To seek the recusal of a Judge from hearing a matter simply on the ground that he has determined a matter with similar facts is an implication that there is a likelihood that another Judge will arrive at a different decision. In my view, instead of subjecting another Judge of concurrent jurisdiction to an embarrassing situation of arriving at a different decision, parties ought to be advised by their legal counsel to appeal the decision instead and the law provides for mechanism for protection of a party while it is pursuing an appeal. By asking another Judge to hear the matter, based on recusal there would be an expectation that that other Judge may arrive at a decision different from the decision arrived at by the Court referring the matter. Whereas a Judge of the High Court is not bound by a decision of a Court of concurrent jurisdiction, to deliberately set out to have another Judge arrive at a different decision is in my view a manifestation of bad faith. If the matter were to be heard by a different Judge of concurrent jurisdiction and a different decision is arrived at there would be two conflicting decisions of the Court and the perception created would be that the Respondent chose a Judge who was sympathetic to its cause. If that were to happen the citizens of this Country would be led to believe that justice depends on a particular Judge rather than the rule of law and that belief would bring the whole judicial process into disrepute and embarrassment.
Still in the Court of Appeal...will finish the ballot papers case by 9 this evening...@Paul_Muite @DonaldBKipkorir @WehliyeMohamed pic.twitter.com/TqcrwoGO7z
— Ahmednasir Abdullahi SC (@ahmednasirlaw) July 14, 2017
At 10.30 today a five judge bench of the Court of Appeal will deliver judgment on IEBC appeal on the ballot papers case @DonaldBKipkorir
— Ahmednasir Abdullahi SC (@ahmednasirlaw) July 20, 2017
Supreme Court agrees with IEBC that it is impractical to retender. So do we cancel/postpone the election or proceed with one which lacked public participation?
NASA failed to demonstrate why not A Ghurair. They certainly won't cry foul , and unlike the 2013 petition, they can't argue that their evidence was rejected. Here they have none
So for the next 5yrs from 2017 to 2022, the narrative will shift from '2.5M more votes for presidential election above any other election' to Al Ghurair-Gate. Don't confuse them with factsPress Release - 10th July 2017 - Procurement of Presidential Ballot Papers #Ballot2017 pic.twitter.com/jGqexcKJzd
— IEBC (@IEBCKenya) July 10, 2017
Court of appeal rejects Nasa claims linking Alghurair to @UKenyatta
— -Dennis Itumbi, CBS (@OleItumbi) July 20, 2017
Nasa Propaganda rejected as rumour, once again. #NasaTheRumourMongers