Nipate

Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: vooke on August 18, 2017, 10:35:25 AM

Title: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: vooke on August 18, 2017, 10:35:25 AM
I've heard petitions stand or fall on Section 83


Quote
83. Non Compliance with the Law
No election shall be declared to be void by reason of non-compliance with any written law relating to that election if it appears that the election was conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution and in that written law or that the non-compliance did not affect the result of the election.
https://www.iebc.or.ke/uploads/resources/ymP8N4T4oa.pdf

NASWA needs really MBIG set of facts/evidence to get past this
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: GeeMail on August 18, 2017, 10:40:44 AM
Announcement of the winner was based on digital tujifalangalanga hot air rather than the constitutional one man one vote. That is material enough to overturn an election.
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: vooke on August 18, 2017, 11:53:07 AM
Announcement of the winner was based on digital tujifalangalanga hot air rather than the constitutional one man one vote. That is material enough to overturn an election.
Should be a walk over in that case
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: Kichwa on August 18, 2017, 12:08:52 PM
I think that is common knowledge.  The evidence must be substantial, clear and convincing.  This is why NASA was debating whether to go to court.  If the standard was a mere preponderance of evidence then we would be preparing for a rerun.  I think NASA can meet the standard of substantial/clear and convincing evidence because I think they can show at a minimum that Uhuru did not get 50 plus one.  My fear is that the judges may confuse or deliberately  apply the highest  standard only used in criminal law "Beyond reasonable doubt".  NASA lawyers must spend a lot of time dealing with the standard of proof by citing several cases all over the world and giving examples of what they have to proof to overturn this travesty of justice.  This will put the judges on notice that the country and the world is watching how they deal with this case.

I've heard petitions stand or fall on Section 83


Quote
83. Non Compliance with the Law
No election shall be declared to be void by reason of non-compliance with any written law relating to that election if it appears that the election was conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution and in that written law or that the non-compliance did not affect the result of the election.
https://www.iebc.or.ke/uploads/resources/ymP8N4T4oa.pdf

NASWA needs really MBIG set of facts/evidence to get past this
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: vooke on August 18, 2017, 12:48:54 PM
I think that is common knowledge.  The evidence must be substantial, clear and convincing.  This is why NASA was debating whether to go to court.  If the standard was a mere preponderance of evidence then we would be preparing for a rerun.  I think NASA can meet the standard of substantial/clear and convincing evidence because I think they can show at a minimum that Uhuru did not get 50 plus one.  My fear is that the judges may confuse or deliberately  apply the highest  standard only used in criminal law "Beyond reasonable doubt".  NASA lawyers must spend a lot of time dealing with the standard of proof by citing several cases all over the world and giving examples of what they have to proof to overturn this travesty of justice.  This will put the judges on notice that the country and the world is watching how they deal with this case.

I've heard petitions stand or fall on Section 83


Quote
83. Non Compliance with the Law
No election shall be declared to be void by reason of non-compliance with any written law relating to that election if it appears that the election was conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution and in that written law or that the non-compliance did not affect the result of the election.
https://www.iebc.or.ke/uploads/resources/ymP8N4T4oa.pdf

NASWA needs really MBIG set of facts/evidence to get past this
It's not common. If it were,NASWA would be busy elsewhere other than poring  the portal. No amount of errors bordering on stupidity on the portal counts, yet that's all they are murmuring about.

We'll find out a few hours from now when they file their petition
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: vooke on August 18, 2017, 11:04:45 PM
Quote
STATEMENT ON THE FILING OF A PETITION BY RT HON RAILA O. ODINGA AND H.E STEPHEN KALONZO MUSYOKA AT THE SUPREME COURT, NAIROBI
August 18, 2017
This petition has been filed by the presidential candidate for the National Super Alliance, (NASA)  Rt Hon Raila Amolo Odinga, and his running mate, H.E Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka.

They have moved to court on the basis of specific irregularities that they have identified, which include numerous instances when their ticket was denied votes and others in which their competitor, Uhuru Kenyatta had undeserved votes added to his total.

Even though NASA agents in Rift Valley and Central Kenya regions were removed from polling stations and replaced by imposters who were caused to create fictitious names and sign blank result forms, the coalition has a substantial evidence of what transpired throughout the country.

Data analysts have examined over 25,000 results forms for vote declarations and detected 14,000 of them that had errors ranging from statutory documents not signed by returning officers, others not authenticated by official rubber stamp, and yet others that do not have agent names or signatures. Some forms show one presiding officer’s name in charge of elections in multiple stations at the same time. There are 443 instances of un-gazetted polling stations, Forms 34A that are filled out in the same handwriting, blank forms, and others that have a polling station, names and details of agents as well as their signatures but are in spaces meant to show results.

A sample review of 5,000 polling station results from NASA’s agents reviewed against those supplied by the Independent Elections and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) showed a number of fundamental defects: the total number of votes added to Uhuru Kenyatta and deducted from Raila Odinga are significant, especially if you extrapolate this to 40,000 polling stations.

Votes cast for president (15,588,038) exceeded those for governors (15,098,646) and Members of the National Assembly (15,008,818) by 482,202 and 567,517 ballots respectively.

The law and the decisions of the courts required a number of things done, including voting, electronic transmission of results, by image and text to tallying centre, and the display of results in a public portal that is accountable, verifiable and accurate. These are the standards that determine whether or not results meet the constitutional threshold. The IEBC mould flouted all these principles. Most strikingly, by the time of announcing the final result, the Commission’s Chairman Wafula Chebukati, purported his numbers to be final. This suggested he had received all the tallies from all the polling stations

It has come to pass that by the time of making that declaration, the IEBC was yet to receive 11,883 polling stations results. The IEBC Chairman was yet to receive 17 constituency results, yet he did not qualify his announcement with the explanation that the difference was not sufficient to change final outcome. One is left to ponder how then four days later the IEBC Chairman responds to NASA’s enquiry by saying they have not received 5,015 Forms 34A. This represents some 3.5 million votes. On what basis would he declare final results when according to him, the leading candidate was ahead by slightly over 1 million votes? How would he declare results similar to the public portal when he has publicly claimed that the ones on the portal are not IEBC results, and without the benefit of the verification that was started and discontinued at the Bomas National Tallying Centre?

Returning Officers and Presiding Officers were recalled by IEBC to fill and adjust relevant accountable forms to ensure documents  tallied with the final results.

The presidential election held on August 7, 2017 was so badly conducted and marred with such glaring irregularities that it does not matter who won, or who was declared the winner thereof.
The nature and extent of the flaws and irregularities so significantly affected the results that the IEBC cannot accurately and verifiably determine the number of votes any of the candidates received.
IEBC betrayed its charge to give effect to the sovereign will of the Kenyan people and instead delivered  preconceived and predetermined computer generated leaders.

This election was supposed to be about using technology to curb fraud. Instead, the IEBC has allowed technology to be perverted to defeat the will of the people by leaving the door open to meddlers to enter their system, manipulate numbers and generate an artificial result.

A pattern emerges right from the IEBC refusal to host a recovery site for its server in Kenya to the brutal killing of Chris Musando. It stretches to the exclusion of 11,000 polling stations catering for over 7 million votes from the general standard for results transmission, and the transmission of text without scanned images. The series of gaps, whether deliberate or   product of negligence, frustrated the use of technology to deliver an accountable results transmission process.

Worse, the process of relaying and transmitting results from polling stations to constituency to  the National Tallying Centre did not meet the standard established in the Constitution: it was not simple, accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable, transparent, open or prompt.

The IEBC selectively manipulated, engineered and deliberately distorted votes and counted them in favour of Uhuru Kenyatta in order to affect the final result. It inflated votes substantially and significantly. The effect of this systemic and systematic manipulation and distortion of results renders it impossible to tell who actually won, let alone know whether or not the threshold for winning a presidential election was met.

IEBC set out to frustrate the people’s will and deliver a flawed election. The inescapable conclusion is that individual returns, even those appearing to be valid votes, had fundamental irregularities in law. It is not possible to clean up these errors simply by correcting the sums. The entire process of tallying recording, transmitting, verifying and confirmation of results was so fundamentally flawed that you cannot talk of any meaningful results.

This petition asks the court and by extension the people of Kenya to nullify the entire exercise because it is fatally compromised, in order to pave the way for fresh, legitimate elections.
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: vooke on August 19, 2017, 09:21:52 AM
The petition
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2rMMQJiqMB8VVBOb1NEcjBlUEE/view?usp=drivesdk
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: vooke on August 20, 2017, 08:25:31 PM
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: vooke on August 23, 2017, 10:28:51 PM
NASWA is mighty scared
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: RV Pundit on August 23, 2017, 10:53:39 PM
They need to relax like jubilee has behaved for months now unless you have no facts
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: Kichwa on August 23, 2017, 11:03:02 PM
I think we are going beyond elections now. The entire system is rigged to favor two tribes and folks are starting to think outside that stifling box.

They need to relax like jubilee has behaved for months now unless you have no facts
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: vooke on August 23, 2017, 11:08:05 PM
I think we are going beyond elections now. The entire system is rigged to favor two tribes and folks are starting to think outside that stifling box.

They need to relax like jubilee has behaved for months now unless you have no facts

So why are they still belching statements on the elections?

Why not abandon the petition altogether?
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants on August 23, 2017, 11:17:56 PM
I think we are going beyond elections now. The entire system is rigged to favor two tribes and folks are starting to think outside that stifling box.

They need to relax like jubilee has behaved for months now unless you have no facts

So why are they still belching statements on the elections?

Why not abandon the petition altogether?

They won't move on, could be the simple explanation.
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: vooke on August 24, 2017, 12:24:40 AM
I think we are going beyond elections now. The entire system is rigged to favor two tribes and folks are starting to think outside that stifling box.

They need to relax like jubilee has behaved for months now unless you have no facts

So why are they still belching statements on the elections?

Why not abandon the petition altogether?

They won't move on, could be the simple explanation.
Going 'beyond elections' is moving on, petition is 'won't move on'
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants on August 24, 2017, 12:56:06 AM
I think we are going beyond elections now. The entire system is rigged to favor two tribes and folks are starting to think outside that stifling box.

They need to relax like jubilee has behaved for months now unless you have no facts

So why are they still belching statements on the elections?

Why not abandon the petition altogether?

They won't move on, could be the simple explanation.
Going 'beyond elections' is moving on, petition is 'won't move on'

How do I understand it?  They won't stop at elections. 
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: vooke on August 24, 2017, 06:13:57 AM
I think we are going beyond elections now. The entire system is rigged to favor two tribes and folks are starting to think outside that stifling box.

They need to relax like jubilee has behaved for months now unless you have no facts

So why are they still belching statements on the elections?

Why not abandon the petition altogether?

They won't move on, could be the simple explanation.
Going 'beyond elections' is moving on, petition is 'won't move on'

How do I understand it?  They won't stop at elections. 
How I understand it, whatever they do is irrelevant. They may downplay the the petition, but that's just about all their hopes hinge on.
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: vooke on August 24, 2017, 06:59:03 AM

What is the purpose of this statement?
That NASWA's petition stands or falls on authenticity of these 14K forms 34A?
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: RV Pundit on August 24, 2017, 09:17:04 AM
Why are they panicking. The rubber will meet the road next week.

What is the purpose of this statement?
That NASWA's petition stands or falls on authenticity of these 14K forms 34A?
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: vooke on August 24, 2017, 09:04:44 PM
Another NASWA statement from an extremely junior thug. Parliament should ONLY sit after the petition,and anything else is 'psychological warfare' :lolz:
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: RV Pundit on August 24, 2017, 09:22:05 PM
Hopefully there is some loophole to escape swearing in otherwise they might loose their seats.
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: vooke on August 29, 2017, 03:41:02 PM
Prayers come in handy to get around section 83
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: RV Pundit on August 29, 2017, 03:41:53 PM
They need miracles;
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: vooke on August 30, 2017, 01:15:36 PM

Omorlo and Moonki,

LSK Submissions from 1:38:40

LSK reckons that Section 83 is not applicable to a presidential election petition
Quote
83. Non-compliance with the law
No election shall be declared to be void by reason of non-compliance with any written law relating to that election if it appears that the election was conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution and in that written law or that the non-compliance did not affect the result of the election.

The reasons to my mind appears strange;
Mwenesi, if I heard him right ,argues that whereas Section 83 uses VOID, Article 140 of our constitution uses the term INVALID, and these are very different terms hence
Quote
140. (1) A person may  le a petition in the Supreme Court to challenge the election of the President-elect within seven days after the date of the declaration of the results of the presidential election.
(2) Within fourteen days after the  ling of a petition under clause (1), the Supreme Court shall hear and determine the petition and its decision shall be  nal.
(3) If the Supreme Court determines the election of the President- elect to be invalid, a fresh election shall be held within sixty days after the determination.

The further argument is that SCOK should be guided by Constitution definition of Free and Fair in Section 81, and not Section 83 of the Elections Act
Quote
free and fair elections, which are—
(i) by secret ballot;
(ii) free from violence, intimidation, improper in uence or corruption;
(iii) conducted by an independent body;
(iv) transparent; and
(v) administered in an impartial, neutral, ef cient, accurate and accountable manner.

Does he make sense? Is INVALID not equal to VOID?  LOoks like in either the Elections Act and the Constitution,the outcome of both VOID and INVALID is a fresh election. I felt like he was splitting hairs,but that's me. I also can't find Section 83 inconsistent with the katiba.  What your take?
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: RV Pundit on August 30, 2017, 01:28:11 PM
Mwenesi is nuts:
void
void/Submit
adjective
1.
not valid or legally binding.
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: vooke on August 30, 2017, 01:41:37 PM
Mwenesi is nuts:
void
void/Submit
adjective
1.
not valid or legally binding.

I know Law is sacred and all but I don't need a Law degree to see through this bullshiet.

Section 83 speaks of non-compliance with 'any written Law' then further on the paragraph mention constitution. There is some clear distinction between Constitution and 'any written Law' which obviously refers to election laws such as the Elections Act itself.

So methinks the point is not an election that is against the Constitutional principles of Free and Fair as laid out in section 81, but procedural stuff set out in the electoral laws.

Supposing there is no form 34A and instead, the results are handwritten in an A4 page,signed by al agents,observers,PO,DPO....and pinned outside a polling station after they have been scanned and sent vide KIEMS.

Yes the results are not in accordance the 'written laws'(Elections Act), but are they invalid?
Which principle of the katiba did they breach? Is there constitutional infraction?
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: RV Pundit on August 30, 2017, 02:02:21 PM
Precisely. Otherwise if you allow people to nit-pick - then there will never be a valid election.
I know Law is sacred and all but I don't need a Law degree to see through this bullshiet.

Section 83 speaks of non-compliance with 'any written Law' then further on the paragraph mention constitution. There is some clear distinction between Constitution and 'any written Law' which obviously refers to election laws such as the Elections Act itself.

So methinks the point is not an election that is against the Constitutional principles of Free and Fair as laid out in section 81, but procedural stuff set out in the electoral laws.

Supposing there is no form 34A and instead, the results are handwritten in an A4 page,signed by al agents,observers,PO,DPO....and pinned outside a polling station after they have been scanned and sent vide KIEMS.

Yes the results are not in accordance the 'written laws'(Elections Act), but are they invalid?
Which principle of the katiba did they breach? Is there constitutional infraction?
Title: Re: Section 83,Elections Act
Post by: vooke on August 30, 2017, 02:26:40 PM
Precisely. Otherwise if you allow people to nit-pick - then there will never be a valid election.

The other bit about LSK submission is the suggestion that the principles in the katiba section 81 apply to the presidential elections. While correct, they seemed to imply those are presidential elections standards alone. I think it applies in ALL elections. So you don't grab Section 81 and use it to crush Section 83, rather you interrogate how Section 83 circumvents Section 81.

In short, all these are applicable in all elections,and they don't contradict each other. Section 83 was probably developed to avoid frivolous petitions