Where exactly did she claim to have checked 11K forms?she did
Where exactly did she claim to have checked 11K forms?
Long winded judgements are in most cases an abyss of confusion and a futile effort to convince yourself that you are right.
— Mutula KilonzoJR CBS (@GvnMutula) September 20, 2017
Her scrutiny was restricted to the contentious forms under Nyangasi's affidavit.Where exactly did she claim to have checked 11K forms?she did
Look at her list. She looked at everything including barcodes. By herself. Do you believe she did this?Her scrutiny was restricted to the contentious forms under Nyangasi's affidavit.Where exactly did she claim to have checked 11K forms?she did
These were 1349 forms 34A and 291 forms 34B
Refer to page 278 and 279 of her dissenting opinion
Where exactly did she claim to have checked 11K forms?
Preliminary Observations
(i) 1640 Forms 34A and 34B in total were disputed with particularity
(ii) 1349 Forms 34A were disputed, with particularity
(iii) All 291 Forms 34B were also disputed
(iv) Having looked at all the Forms 34A and 34B (290 constituencies, 1
diaspora), I am satisfied that all the Forms met the required threshold in
Form and content. The findings are summarized below:
Nope, pobably her PA.Look at her list. She looked at everything including barcodes. By herself. Do you believe she did this?Her scrutiny was restricted to the contentious forms under Nyangasi's affidavit.Where exactly did she claim to have checked 11K forms?she did
These were 1349 forms 34A and 291 forms 34B
Refer to page 278 and 279 of her dissenting opinion
Nope, pobably her PA.Look at her list. She looked at everything including barcodes. By herself. Do you believe she did this?Her scrutiny was restricted to the contentious forms under Nyangasi's affidavit.Where exactly did she claim to have checked 11K forms?she did
These were 1349 forms 34A and 291 forms 34B
Refer to page 278 and 279 of her dissenting opinion
But not she was working against what NASWA picked as defects as opposed to running down the forms against some checklist
ALL???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Where exactly did she claim to have checked 11K forms?
She claimed to have checked 3,280 forms on the petition. Not 11K. Page 279 of your link https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2rMMQJiqMB8eUpoLTJBWXFMYUE/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2rMMQJiqMB8eUpoLTJBWXFMYUE/view).QuotePreliminary Observations
(i) 1640 Forms 34A and 34B in total were disputed with particularity
(ii) 1349 Forms 34A were disputed, with particularity
(iii) All 291 Forms 34B were also disputed
(iv) Having looked at all the Forms 34A and 34B (290 constituencies, 1
diaspora), I am satisfied that all the Forms met the required threshold in
Form and content. The findings are summarized below:
I hope I never have to wade through that manure to dig up something again.
1640 is 34A+34BWhere exactly did she claim to have checked 11K forms?
She claimed to have checked 3,280 forms on the petition. Not 11K. Page 279 of your link https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2rMMQJiqMB8eUpoLTJBWXFMYUE/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2rMMQJiqMB8eUpoLTJBWXFMYUE/view).QuotePreliminary Observations
(i) 1640 Forms 34A and 34B in total were disputed with particularity
(ii) 1349 Forms 34A were disputed, with particularity
(iii) All 291 Forms 34B were also disputed
(iv) Having looked at all the Forms 34A and 34B (290 constituencies, 1
diaspora), I am satisfied that all the Forms met the required threshold in
Form and content. The findings are summarized below:
I hope I never have to wade through that manure to dig up something again.
Do you think this is legal?Nope, pobably her PA.Look at her list. She looked at everything including barcodes. By herself. Do you believe she did this?Her scrutiny was restricted to the contentious forms under Nyangasi's affidavit.Where exactly did she claim to have checked 11K forms?she did
These were 1349 forms 34A and 291 forms 34B
Refer to page 278 and 279 of her dissenting opinion
But not she was working against what NASWA picked as defects as opposed to running down the forms against some checklist
ALL???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Where exactly did she claim to have checked 11K forms?
She claimed to have checked 3,280 forms on the petition. Not 11K. Page 279 of your link https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2rMMQJiqMB8eUpoLTJBWXFMYUE/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2rMMQJiqMB8eUpoLTJBWXFMYUE/view).QuotePreliminary Observations
(i) 1640 Forms 34A and 34B in total were disputed with particularity
(ii) 1349 Forms 34A were disputed, with particularity
(iii) All 291 Forms 34B were also disputed
(iv) Having looked at all the Forms 34A and 34B (290 constituencies, 1
diaspora), I am satisfied that all the Forms met the required threshold in
Form and content. The findings are summarized below:
I hope I never have to wade through that manure to dig up something again.
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
I don't know but off my mind I can't see anything wrong.Do you think this is legal?Nope, pobably her PA.Look at her list. She looked at everything including barcodes. By herself. Do you believe she did this?Her scrutiny was restricted to the contentious forms under Nyangasi's affidavit.Where exactly did she claim to have checked 11K forms?she did
These were 1349 forms 34A and 291 forms 34B
Refer to page 278 and 279 of her dissenting opinion
But not she was working against what NASWA picked as defects as opposed to running down the forms against some checklist
Exactly as the court did. You arrange for it to be done in a transparent and open way, allowing the parties to follow it and make their inputs and then you apply your mind to what is found.Do you think this is legal?I don't know but off my mind I can't see anything wrong.
Tell me, you have 25k documents before you, a bench of 7. How exactly do you go about it? You need permission or consent of the rest to Wade through that ama?
You are confusing the scrutiny exercise with this. She worked with the certified copies delivered to the court by IEBC,not the originals dropped there for the scrutiny exercise.Exactly as the court did. You arrange for it to be done in a transparent and open way, allowing the parties to follow it and make their inputs and then you apply your mind to what is found.Do you think this is legal?I don't know but off my mind I can't see anything wrong.
Tell me, you have 25k documents before you, a bench of 7. How exactly do you go about it? You need permission or consent of the rest to Wade through that ama?
When you present your evidence before a judge, you are not doing it so someone else can do the judging behind your back.
Staff are not allowed to play judge. We are supposed to believe Njoki admonished her colleagues for trusting a standard public scrutiny and then went ahead and let her clerk. secretary or whoever do the judging she was accusing SCOK judges of not doing behind everyone's back. And this is all kosher.
Who told you she is alone. She has office with staffs. You're a pathological liar who thinks everyone is a liar. Focus on the content - not Njoki reputation or vagina.
I am almost through reading the crap. Unlike you who still has to look at the Kiai High Court and Court of Appeal judgments; The Raila vs IEBC 2013 (which you kept waving over our heads the last 4 years!) but had not and have not read.
The bottomline is this Pundit: Her is a minority decision that means a fart.
The determination of the Supreme Court of Kenya is that Uhuru was not validly elected and that the IEBC declaration of him as President Elect is Null and Void.
A new election has been called and Raila can participate or not. If he does not perhaps we go back to square one. However there is no provision on temporary incumbency. Ruto is going home bro.
You're an idiot - there is video evidence of Maraga working with 2 guys in his house. A Judge is allowed to use his staff or any staff the way she or he wants. If Njoki asked his PA to help him with checking the barcodes while she is there supervesing it - I don't think that problem.And you were told these 2 guys were examining evidence themselves?
Again stop focussing on her and imputing all sort of motives. FOCUS ON THE FACTS of the case.
You're an idiot - there is video evidence of Maraga working with 2 guys in his house. A Judge is allowed to use his staff or any staff the way she or he wants. If Njoki asked his PA to help him with checking the barcodes while she is there supervesing it - I don't think that problem. How she did it - is none of our problem. She did her homework - the rest didn't. They relied on SCOK report.
Again stop focussing on her and imputing all sort of motives. FOCUS ON THE FACTS of the case.Staff are not allowed to play judge. We are supposed to believe Njoki admonished her colleagues for trusting a standard public scrutiny and then went ahead and let her clerk. secretary or whoever do the judging she was accusing SCOK judges of not doing behind everyone's back. And this is all kosher.
Staff are not allowed to play judge. We are supposed to believe Njoki admonished her colleagues for trusting a standard public scrutiny and then went ahead and let her own clerk. secretary or whoever do it instead, and this behind everyone's back. And it's all kosher.Out on a limb,but these are desperate times so it’s allowed.
1640 is 34A+34BWhere exactly did she claim to have checked 11K forms?
She claimed to have checked 3,280 forms on the petition. Not 11K. Page 279 of your link https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2rMMQJiqMB8eUpoLTJBWXFMYUE/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2rMMQJiqMB8eUpoLTJBWXFMYUE/view).QuotePreliminary Observations
(i) 1640 Forms 34A and 34B in total were disputed with particularity
(ii) 1349 Forms 34A were disputed, with particularity
(iii) All 291 Forms 34B were also disputed
(iv) Having looked at all the Forms 34A and 34B (290 constituencies, 1
diaspora), I am satisfied that all the Forms met the required threshold in
Form and content. The findings are summarized below:
I hope I never have to wade through that manure to dig up something again.
1349 IS 34A
You're summing 1640 and 1349
Choo language again!
A judge may be allowed to use staff and even hire lawyers who write her judgment. It is allowed. However a judge cannot adduce evidence. She can argue with evidence presented but cannot put herself in a position where she becomes a witness.
That is what Ahmednasir opposed in an open court; supported by Ngatia only for them to cheer when Njoki does exactly that!
I am glad you're now done reading her vagina!I am almost through reading the crap. Unlike you who still has to look at the Kiai High Court and Court of Appeal judgments; The Raila vs IEBC 2013 (which you kept waving over our heads the last 4 years!) but had not and have not read.
The bottomline is this Pundit: Her is a minority decision that means a fart.
The determination of the Supreme Court of Kenya is that Uhuru was not validly elected and that the IEBC declaration of him as President Elect is Null and Void.
A new election has been called and Raila can participate or not. If he does not perhaps we go back to square one. However there is no provision on temporary incumbency. Ruto is going home bro.
I'm waiting to wake you up when I can demonstrate her illegality, remember?Staff are not allowed to play judge. We are supposed to believe Njoki admonished her colleagues for trusting a standard public scrutiny and then went ahead and let her own clerk. secretary or whoever do it instead, and this behind everyone's back. And it's all kosher.Out on a limb,but these are desperate times so it’s allowed.
I asked you a question.
You have 25K pages petition and annexures. Njoki needs some license to peep?
Sure1640 is 34A+34BWhere exactly did she claim to have checked 11K forms?
She claimed to have checked 3,280 forms on the petition. Not 11K. Page 279 of your link https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2rMMQJiqMB8eUpoLTJBWXFMYUE/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2rMMQJiqMB8eUpoLTJBWXFMYUE/view).QuotePreliminary Observations
(i) 1640 Forms 34A and 34B in total were disputed with particularity
(ii) 1349 Forms 34A were disputed, with particularity
(iii) All 291 Forms 34B were also disputed
(iv) Having looked at all the Forms 34A and 34B (290 constituencies, 1
diaspora), I am satisfied that all the Forms met the required threshold in
Form and content. The findings are summarized below:
I hope I never have to wade through that manure to dig up something again.
1349 IS 34A
You're summing 1640 and 1349
My bad. 19,311 forms. Still I am not inclined to treat her as a neutral party. JSC needs to see her off that bench pronto.
Oh yeahI'm waiting to wake you up when I can demonstrate her illegality, remember?Staff are not allowed to play judge. We are supposed to believe Njoki admonished her colleagues for trusting a standard public scrutiny and then went ahead and let her own clerk. secretary or whoever do it instead, and this behind everyone's back. And it's all kosher.Out on a limb,but these are desperate times so it’s allowed.
I asked you a question.
You have 25K pages petition and annexures. Njoki needs some license to peep?
I can understand your ego is badly hurt. Nothing is working as you expected. You man Ruto is clearly heading home. Pole!
And ohoo please cut the crap. She looked at forms as per Raila affidavits. Dr Nyangesewo Affidavit makes allegations that Njoki examined and found to be complete false. Again the elephant in the house is why Nyakai SCOK scrutiny and Njoki's differ. I'd like you to keep it there.Choo language again!
A judge may be allowed to use staff and even hire lawyers who write her judgment. It is allowed. However a judge cannot adduce evidence. She can argue with evidence presented but cannot put herself in a position where she becomes a witness.
That is what Ahmednasir opposed in an open court; supported by Ngatia only for them to cheer when Njoki does exactly that!
And ohoo please cut the crap. She looked at forms as per Raila affidavits. Dr Nyangesewo Affidavit makes allegations that Njoki examined and found to be complete false. Again the elephant in the house is why Nyakai SCOK scrutiny and Njoki's differ. I'd like you to keep it there.You need to pick a position: she did it herself or she let other people do it in secret while castigating her colleagues for doing it in public. I know clerks help with research. Personally, I've never known that they are allowed to examine evidence for themselves and make a finding which is then trusted by the judge as correct.Choo language again!
A judge may be allowed to use staff and even hire lawyers who write her judgment. It is allowed. However a judge cannot adduce evidence. She can argue with evidence presented but cannot put herself in a position where she becomes a witness.
That is what Ahmednasir opposed in an open court; supported by Ngatia only for them to cheer when Njoki does exactly that!
The way it works:
Petitioner makes an allegation (through and affidavit)
Respondent answers it (ditto)
Petitioner gets a chance to rebutt
Matter comes for oral canvassing and both sides get to respond to issues arrising
A judge cannot adduce evidence. Even where she has own knowledge of the matter. In that event she becomes a witness.
UhuRuto are heading home only in your imagination. What I don't entertain is obtuseness. If the discussion is about facts - I am all for it. If you're hear to discuss Njoki - then that clearly is waste of our time.
The Judicial Service Commission has filed an application at the High Court seeking orders to cross-examine Supreme Court Judge Njoki Ndung’u on her petitions. Through lawyer Charles Kanjama, JSC appeared before Judge Chacha Mwita and expressed its intention to cross-examine the judge on her petition and sworn affidavits filed in court.
On June 7 last year, the High Court ruled that Justice Ndung'u should be investigated over gross misconduct.https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2001255190/jsc-to-cross-examine-supreme-court-judge-njoki-ndung-u-on-petitions (https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2001255190/jsc-to-cross-examine-supreme-court-judge-njoki-ndung-u-on-petitions)
And where did she adduce evidence. All FORM 34As and Form 34BS were handed over to Njoki as per the law. They are part of evidence in the case by default. I don't know why you think she need leave to introduce form 34A or 34Bs which by law were taken to her - 4 days after Raila made a petition.How did she check the barcodes?The way it works:
Petitioner makes an allegation (through and affidavit)
Respondent answers it (ditto)
Petitioner gets a chance to rebutt
Matter comes for oral canvassing and both sides get to respond to issues arrising
A judge cannot adduce evidence. Even where she has own knowledge of the matter. In that event she becomes a witness.
This place is fun
Negro claims to have damaging evidence putting judges and petitioners in one place for hours during the Petition and the first thing they bark is, ‘ILLEGAL,INADMISSIBLE’
Next a judge claims a petitioner’s Affidavit is full of shiet and the same gang shouts, ‘UNPROCEDURAL!’
In footie they call it playing defense
How did she check the barcodes?
Why is that pertinent. Maybe Jubilee lawyers helped her - just like Mwilu was assisted by Orengo. We just need you to get us evidence and petition for that.It's pertinent because that is extra evidence she is adducing, all produced in the secrecy of her back office.How did she check the barcodes?
You need to pick a position: she did it herself or she let other people do it in secret while castigating her colleagues for doing it in public. I know clerks help with research. Personally, I've never known that they are allowed to examine evidence for themselves and make a finding which is then trusted by the judge as correct.
It's pertinent because that is extra evidence she is adducing, all produced in the secrecy of her back office.
And where did she adduce evidence. All FORM 34As and Form 34BS were handed over to Njoki as per the law. They are part of evidence in the case by default. I don't know why you think she need leave to introduce form 34A or 34Bs which by law were taken to her - 4 days after Raila made a petition.
When were they handed over to her? The forms were requested as per Raila application. They were in the custody of the Court Registrar. The court and the respondents/ petitioners agreed on the modus operandi as to how to accommodate the application.
The petitioners were denied the opportunity to canvass the findings or both the IT and Forms. Both sides were limited to the report prepared jointly by all the parties.
Are you saying that Uhuru's agents SIGNED a fake report? Are you saying that Ngatia going in court to "correct" elelemts of the report which suggested his agents had made "no comment" and asking that "no comment" be changed to "agreed" was all fake? That somehow Njoki has some super qualifications and is able to see what others did not see?
That said, what does she say about photocopied Forms? They are legal (meet "the threshold" to use her words)
What does she say about forms missing watermarks: They are legal
The reason her decision is incompetent is that while she wants the majority to follow precedent she does not. She sat on her huge ass to tell Wetangula that "the court cannot overlook an illegality"! Today she is saying the court can accept forgeries!
Go suck her
When were they handed over to her? The forms were requested as per Raila application. They were in the custody of the Court Registrar. The court and the respondents/ petitioners agreed on the modus operandi as to how to accommodate the application.
The petitioners were denied the opportunity to canvass the findings or both the IT and Forms. Both sides were limited to the report prepared jointly by all the parties.
Are you saying that Uhuru's agents SIGNED a fake report? Are you saying that Ngatia going in court to "correct" elelemts of the report which suggested his agents had made "no comment" and asking that "no comment" be changed to "agreed" was all fake? That somehow Njoki has some super qualifications and is able to see what others did not see?
That said, what does she say about photocopied Forms? They are legal (meet "the threshold" to use her words)
What does she say about forms missing watermarks: They are legal
The reason her decision is incompetent is that while she wants the majority to follow precedent she does not. She sat on her huge ass to tell Wetangula that "the court cannot overlook an illegality"! Today she is saying the court can accept forgeries!
Go suck her
My position is that it's not humanly impossible to do what she did within the time-frame. And it's not important to know how she did this. I am laser-focused on why her output and scok registar output differs. We have a judge saying the forms are kosher - and Registar saying the same forms are not. That is where the problem is....it calls for a review and maybe yet another scrutiny and verification...just for posterity sake and to determine if someone might have manipulated the court process. It could either mean Njoki is liar - and therefore JSC out to remove her..or Nyakai & the team did their own stuff.You need to pick a position: she did it herself or she let other people do it in secret while castigating her colleagues for doing it in public. I know clerks help with research. Personally, I've never known that they are allowed to examine evidence for themselves and make a finding which is then trusted by the judge as correct.
I doubt you're a lawyer - how did she adduce new evidence? Form 34s are part of this cases - by law - IEBC are required to take all those forms to SCOK judges. The SCOK judges job is to verify these forms. Nowhere does it say - it should ask the Registar or Experts to do that for them - of course nowhere does it also deny them opportunity to seek expertise.Don't worry about what I do/did. It is new evidence because it is not plain on the face of the document. She needs to do something else to check it and make sure certain information is there/not. She can't do that in secret and then say "trust me, I checked it alone and this is what I discovered". There's a reason why there are elaborate rules of evidence, Pundit.It's pertinent because that is extra evidence she is adducing, all produced in the secrecy of her back office.
Don't worry about what I do/did. It is new evidence because it is not on plain on the face of the document. She needs to do something else to check it and make sure certain information is there/not. She can't do that in secret and then say "trust me, I checked it alone and this is what I discovered". There's a reason why there are elaborate rules of evidence, Pundit.
My position is that it's not humanly impossible to do what she did within the time-frame. And it's not important to know how she did this. I am laser-focused on why her output and scok registar output differs. We have a judge saying the forms are kosher - and Registar saying the same forms are not. That is where the problem is....it calls for a review and maybe yet another scrutiny and verification...just for posterity sake and to determine if someone might have manipulated the court process. It could either mean Njoki is liar - and therefore JSC out to remove her..or Nyakai & the team did their own stuff.Two judges saying there is no problem with the elections. Four judges think that the elections were invalid. Why shouldn't that also mean a review?You need to pick a position: she did it herself or she let other people do it in secret while castigating her colleagues for doing it in public. I know clerks help with research. Personally, I've never known that they are allowed to examine evidence for themselves and make a finding which is then trusted by the judge as correct.
No new evidence was ADDUCED.Njoki would beg differ. She has presented a whole list of factual findings that no one produced but her.Don't worry about what I do/did. It is new evidence because it is not on plain on the face of the document. She needs to do something else to check it and make sure certain information is there/not. She can't do that in secret and then say "trust me, I checked it alone and this is what I discovered". There's a reason why there are elaborate rules of evidence, Pundit.
Two judges saying there is no problem with the elections. Four judges think that the elections were invalid. Why shouldn't that also mean a review?
Njoki would beg differ. She has presented a whole list of factual findings that no one produced but her.
Njoki is minority/dissenting opinion yet her acts are scaring someone.
She’s essentially saying that the certified copies of forms 34A and 34B surrendered to the court by IEBC are different from what NASWA relied on
And she’s also saying thet EITHER the certified copies are different from the originals since the scrutiny arrived at different conclusion, OR the scrutiny exercise was screwed.
If IEBC fudged with the certified copies but delivered totally different originals,Njoki will look like a fool. But if the scrutiny was bungled,she will be vindicated
The four judges relied on Nyakai. If today we discover Nyakai lied - you think a legal review is not required. I am hoping you even understand what LEGAL REVIEW is in our laws. There is nothing like final decision in any matter human being. If today you were sentenced and you discover the evidence relied upon was faulty - you can always seek legal review.Two judges saying there is no problem with the elections. Four judges think that the elections were invalid. Why shouldn't that also mean a review?
So you're actually arguing from point of ignorance as always. You need to read election act moron.
4 days after an presidential election is filled - IEBC MUST and THEY DID present all FORM 34 As and Form 34Bs.
This happened on August 24th - way before Raila interlocutory order - which was filled out of time and was in my view tangential to the case.
https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2017/08/23/iebc-delivers-forms-34-a-b-and-c-to-supreme-court_c1621566
How would she present her analysis? Isn't that her job in determining the truth of the allegations made?Proper analysing means we don't have to now go to these documents ourselves and check if her claims are true. They would have been already been presented at the hearing and challenged for their truth/not. And then Njoki's finding would make sense. The point you are stressing: that the issue is that we need to determine who is lying here, that's what the whole trial/hearing process is for.Njoki would beg differ. She has presented a whole list of factual findings that no one produced but her.
You can seek redress. But it takes more than a mere disagreement with the observation of one party. The burden of proof in this case would be on Njoki. As it stands right now, her opinion is little more than a fart.
You're ignorant. Njoki is not aggrieved.The aggrieved person here is Uhuru and Kenyans. Let try a moronic version - you're sentenced to death by 3 out 4 judges - one judge say the dna was faked but majority relies on DNA expert to arrive at the decision. You later discover the so called expert was lying bastard. You go back and present the evidence. The 3 judges who believed the DNA expert - will now have to re-examine the evidence again - and see if they can arrive at the same decision with that evidence removed.You can seek redress. But it takes more than a mere disagreement with the observation of one party. The burden of proof in this case would be on Njoki. As it stands right now, her opinion is little more than a fart.
The day Pundit will teach me anything is the day I will stop posting here and move to a Korean Monastery to live in seclusion.
Let us expose the ignoramus:L Post here the evidence to back your claim that:4 days after an presidential election is filled - IEBC MUST and THEY DID present all FORM 34 As and Form 34Bs.
If you fail say so then I will in turn continue with educating you pro bono.
It's SCOK. Deal with it.
You're ignorant. Njoki is not aggrieved.The aggrieved person here is Uhuru and Kenyans. Let try a moronic version - you're sentenced to death by 3 out 4 judges - one judge say the dna looks faked but majority relies on DNA expert to arrive at the decision. You later discover the so called expert was lying bastard. You go back and present the evidence. The 3 judges who believed the DNA expert - will now have to re-examine the evidence again - and see if they can arrive at the same decision with that evidence removed. That is LEGAL REVIEW 101. Njoki job is done. She has washed her hands.That example misses the point of the debate. Unless you are saying Uhuru discovered the experts were lying and then used Njoki to introduce this after the fact when the case was done.You can seek redress. But it takes more than a mere disagreement with the observation of one party. The burden of proof in this case would be on Njoki. As it stands right now, her opinion is little more than a fart.
IEBC once a petition has been filled - is required by law - to furnish the petitioner, the respondents and SCOK court - with form 34s. I don't know how hard that is to understand.The day Pundit will teach me anything is the day I will stop posting here and move to a Korean Monastery to live in seclusion.
Let us expose the ignoramus:L Post here the evidence to back your claim that:4 days after an presidential election is filled - IEBC MUST and THEY DID present all FORM 34 As and Form 34Bs.
If you fail say so then I will in turn continue with educating you pro bono.
Deal with what? I am dealing with your ignorance. Invest in law 101. This is ICC redux but this time round you don't have MoonKi to help you out. This things you can actually read and learn. I didn't go to any law schools but I can ran circles around a bimbo like Kadame.It's SCOK. Deal with it.
I simply asked you to refer me to the specific law that contains that automaticity. Should I translate my request into Kipsigis? I can manage nandi, is that good enough?
Jubilee strongly believe there was a coup.
They should apply for scrutiny of these documents. Njoki has given them some starting point.
Yes it's SCOK and final but proving that the decision was arrived at out of defective evidence will have advance their narrative a long way just as a recount will.
These exercises cost money but so do campaigns
Grieve and soil your pants in peace. Leave me out of it.
Jubilee strongly believe there was a coup.
They should apply for scrutiny of these documents. Njoki has given them some starting point.
Yes it's SCOK and final but proving that the decision was arrived at out of defective evidence will have advance their narrative a long way just as a recount will.
These exercises cost money but so do campaigns
You can exit this thread coz honestly this is way beyond your paygrade.Grieve and soil your pants in peace. Leave me out of it.
You have a problem reading ammended election act if yes please find this picture taken at SCOK HQ. I know you're ignorant - IEBC gave SCOK all the forms 34s. Raila petition which was filled later - asked for the originals.
https://www.the-star.co.ke/sites/default/files/styles/new_full_content/public/1621515.jpg?itok=D8z2Pk2SI simply asked you to refer me to the specific law that contains that automaticity. Should I translate my request into Kipsigis? I can manage nandi, is that good enough?
1. The exercise would be futileIt is not meant for winning NASWA zones, but fighting SCOK as well as forging a campaign message.
2. Even if the result say Raila won or Uhuru lost, GEMA would believe one thing and NASA would believe another
3. It is my opinion that the NIS has fixed the boxes and now they are ready for "recounting".Jubilee strongly believe there was a coup.
They should apply for scrutiny of these documents. Njoki has given them some starting point.
Yes it's SCOK and final but proving that the decision was arrived at out of defective evidence will have advance their narrative a long way just as a recount will.
These exercises cost money but so do campaigns
Again my offer to translate to Kipsigis stands.
I am requesting you to provide proof of something you claimed, especially as you indicated that lack of knowledge of it amounts to ignorance and idiocy etc.
You have indicated there is an automaticity in the law that kicks in and trigger a specific reaction. Kindly favor me with a copy of that law or better still give me a reference.
[Quote="RV Pundit on Today at 06:41:00 PM"
IEBC once a petition has been filled - is required by law - to furnish the petitioner, the respondents and SCOK court - with form 34s. I don't know how hard that is to understand.
I have not denied that IEBC provided all the forms. That is NOT the issue, is it? Because if you think that is the issue that you should be responding to then we have the same problem Uhuru's lawyers faced in the court - namely answering questions not asked and failing to answer the ones asked!
Try again or let me post it in NandiYou have a problem reading ammended election act if yes please find this picture taken at SCOK HQ. I know you're ignorant - IEBC gave SCOK all the forms 34s. Raila petition which was filled later - asked for the originals.
https://www.the-star.co.ke/sites/default/files/styles/new_full_content/public/1621515.jpg?itok=D8z2Pk2SI simply asked you to refer me to the specific law that contains that automaticity. Should I translate my request into Kipsigis? I can manage nandi, is that good enough?
Again my offer to translate to Kipsigis stands.
I think for posturity and for accountability this need to be done.
We have a situation where copies presented to court and parties - differ with originals that Raila ambushed everyone with by demanding them.
Obviously someone replaced the originals with fakes.
Someone in IEBC obviously working with NASA did this.
If you read Nyakai report - NASA crew seem to know where the fakes were.
They planted it the same way they had someone FAKE Kethi Kilonzo registration form.
Going by IEBC Kaasit and Muite - they were sure their original were good.
They didn't imagine someone had inflitrated their systems and planted fakes.
Investigation out to commences - check the CCTVS and the shebang.Jubilee strongly believe there was a coup.
They should apply for scrutiny of these documents. Njoki has given them some starting point.
Yes it's SCOK and final but proving that the decision was arrived at out of defective evidence will have advance their narrative a long way just as a recount will.
These exercises cost money but so do campaigns
Section 12 (2) of the Supreme Court Act, 2011
http://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Acts/SupremeCourtAct_No.7of2011_2.pdf
How about a full fledged Commission of Inquiry led by an International Judge to:
1. Look into the 2013 and 2017 elections
Oops .. Today is the 4th Anniversary of Westgate! Yet no commision of inquiry promised by Uhuru Kenyatta. Please remind him when you are smoking weed together this evening, would you?
IEBC once a petition has been filled - is required by law - to furnish the petitioner, the respondents and SCOK court - with form 34s. I don't know how hard that is to understand.
Please do this. Otherwise I am not in business of helping you do your homework. Read election laws.Again my offer to translate to Kipsigis stands.
It is not my homework. You made a claim and it is within my rights to demand evidence and your obligation to provide the same unchallenged.
If you are unable, say so and withdraw the claims you made. This is a matter of honor and respect. Of course I know such things as honor and respect are not treasured by all.
I am absolutely okay with any truth seeking. That will never change as long as I am alive. I don't think you understand how brutally honest I am and was brought up to be. I will not defend any rigging. And I don't want any rigging.I also know a loser when I see one..the truth before me is that Raila has no path to victory. I don't want him rigged out - I want us to have the most free, fair, credible and name it election or court processes.How about a full fledged Commission of Inquiry led by an International Judge to:
1. Look into the 2013 and 2017 elections
Oops .. Today is the 4th Anniversary of Westgate! Yet no commision of inquiry promised by Uhuru Kenyatta. Please remind him when you are smoking weed together this evening, would you?
I gave you enough hints and pictures to help you. You claims to have read many things..but obviously you're not done reading her vagina..before you start with her tribe (you obviously have issues with women and kikuyus)..so once you're ready to read the election laws ( election acts, iebc regulations, constitutions and supreme court act, iebc act ) then come here and act like you know shiet.
Let those who do not know you and how you have worked against any move to promote transparency and end rigging as a political believe you. You have glorified and cheered all the corrupted methods of acquiring power while denigrating and humiliating those who oppose such means and methods.
You have not figured it out?
There is no such thing. It does not exist. It is up to the petitioner to determine what he needs. Forms cannot be brought where they are an issue.
Omorlo,
I shared a wrong link
(https://s26.postimg.org/g75qg0chl/E72_FCACD-1_F78-4_C62-_A9_F8-_FD2_E5_D373932.jpg)
http://kenyalaw.org/lex/rest//db/kenyalex/Kenya/Legislation/English/Acts%20and%20Regulations/S/Supreme%20Court%20Act%20Cap.%209A%20-%20Act%20No.%207%20of%202011/docs/SupremeCourtAct7of2011.pdf
Looks like IEBC only surrenders the certified copies of forms 34A,34B,and 34C once a Petition is filed
Deal with what? I am dealing with your ignorance. Invest in law 101. This is ICC redux but this time round you don't have MoonKi to help you out. This things you can actually read and learn. I didn't go to any law schools but I can ran circles around a bimbo like Kadame.:D :D :D Ati run circles around whom? where? when? Link, tafadhali! :D I see you are still reeling over my laughing at you for your newfound faith in R,Os who are able to correctly guess the content of 34B and the personal scrutiny of hundreds of forms by a busy judge hearing a busy case in an incredibly short period. Pole baba. I had no idea it would sting so much. :DIt's SCOK. Deal with it.
:D :D :D Ati run circles around whom? where? when? Link, tafadhali! :D I see you are still reeling over my laughing at you for your newfound faith in R,Os who are able to correctly guess the content of 34B and the personal scrutiny of hundreds of forms by a busy judge hearing a busy case in an incredibly short period. Pole baba. I had no idea it would sting so much. :D
You're an embarrassment to legal fraternity and scholarship. I hope you did quit and went for sisterhood instead.Was that the link where you ran circles with your mbing brain? :D:D :D :D Ati run circles around whom? where? when? Link, tafadhali! :D I see you are still reeling over my laughing at you for your newfound faith in R,Os who are able to correctly guess the content of 34B and the personal scrutiny of hundreds of forms by a busy judge hearing a busy case in an incredibly short period. Pole baba. I had no idea it would sting so much. :D
Was that the link where you ran circles with your mbing brain? :D
Start from this thread. If you don't even realize it then you're worse off than you think. Ask Robina or Vooke to help you. They seem to have the patients to suffer fools. I don't. It my main weakness.Lets. Which part was the circle at? Where you claimed Njoki used her own staff because you saw a video of a judge somewhere with two staffers? Did it herself? Then gave an asinine analogy about DNA evidence that doesn't remotely deal with this? Or was it the bit where you demonstrated you have no idea what evidence is, who can make a determination on it? Was that the part where you were drawing circles with your mbing brain, Pundit? Maybe it was when you opened your exclusive dictionary of insults from choo to hurl at everyone who disagrees with you? That part I saw. :)Was that the link where you ran circles with your mbing brain? :D
. Which part was the circle at? Where you claimed Njoki used her own staff because you saw a video of a judge somewhere with two staffers? Did it herself? Then gave an asinine analogy about DNA evidence that doesn't remotely deal with this? Or was it the bit where you demonstrated you have no idea what evidence is, who can make a determination on it? Was that the part where you were drawing circles with your mbing brain, Pundit? Maybe it was when you opened your exclusive dictionary of insults from choo to hurl at everyone who disagrees with you? That part I saw. :)
Start from this thread. If you don't even realize it then you're worse off than you think. Ask Robina or Vooke to help you. They seem to have the patiences to gladly suffer fools. I don't. It my main weakness. You claim Njoki introduced new evidence...which is false..because all she did was to verify allegations made by Raila against copies of form 34s that were furnished to her immediately Raila filled her petition. And she found the copies were okay -signed, stamped and seriliazed - while SCOK registar found the originals to be unsigned, unstamped and unseriliazed...and hence the big dilemma we find ourselves as observers in Nipate.So we observers are supposed to replace the trial court where this should have been adduced, challenged and the court made its finding after all that? Stop bragging about your brain and hurling insults. Chema chajiuza baba. That dilemma on nipate is what the entire litigation process is intended to avoid.Was that the link where you ran circles with your mbing brain? :D
So we observers are supposed to replace the trial court where this should have been adduced, challenged and the court made its finding after all that? Stop bragging about your brain and hurling insults. Chema chajiuza baba. That dilemma on nipate is what the entire litigation process is intended to avoid.
I even doubt you know nothing- I somewhat remember you claiming to have read law but maybe a BA or those dodgy law degrees from KEMU.No one cares two cents what you think about your own "scholarship", IQ, or brain size. Get that through your damn mind. Just argue your points. I sell fish for a living and dropped out in standard two, mkay? Still doesn't make your claims any less wrong.
You see before we proceed... I want you to tell us honestly if you have read
1) Constitution - sections that deal with presidency and elections.
2) Election Act of 2011/2016 - and all the ammendments thereof
3) IEBC act
4) IEBC regulations
5) Supreme court Act & regulation regarding petitions.
Once we are clear on those - we can proceed.
Like I said some of us are committed to scholarship - while you're committed to read your bible. This is beyond your scope.. Which part was the circle at? Where you claimed Njoki used her own staff because you saw a video of a judge somewhere with two staffers? Did it herself? Then gave an asinine analogy about DNA evidence that doesn't remotely deal with this? Or was it the bit where you demonstrated you have no idea what evidence is, who can make a determination on it? Was that the part where you were drawing circles with your mbing brain, Pundit? Maybe it was when you opened your exclusive dictionary of insults from choo to hurl at everyone who disagrees with you? That part I saw. :)
I don't brag - as of class 2 I knew I had a special brain.My advice - go to facebook and make bimbo remarks - otherwise take my advice - read up on election laws,regulations and petition proceedings..before you waste more of my time. Being obstinate while pushing nonsense and seeking support from fellow NASArites is not what I do.With bimbos like you here, I think I'll stay. I'm in good company. Now, who sought support? Is that yet another link you can't produce?So we observers are supposed to replace the trial court where this should have been adduced, challenged and the court made its finding after all that? Stop bragging about your brain and hurling insults. Chema chajiuza baba. That dilemma on nipate is what the entire litigation process is intended to avoid.
No one cares two cents what you think about your own "scholarship", IQ, or brain size. Get that through your damn mind. Just argue your points. I sell fish for a living and dropped out in standard two, mkay? Still doesn't make your claims any less wrong.
Nobody is here to buy your rotten fish. How would you know if Njoki improperly introduced evidence when you have not have a look at rules and regulation guiding her on presidenital election and have never read election act?That you think that question is answered outside the laws of evidence ie Evidence Act/ common law case law on evidence says it all.No one cares two cents what you think about your own "scholarship", IQ, or brain size. Get that through your damn mind. Just argue your points. I sell fish for a living and dropped out in standard two, mkay? Still doesn't make your claims any less wrong.
That you think that question is answered outside the laws of evidence ie Evidence Act/ common law case law on evidence says it all.
Thanks again for helping our resident moron. This was part of the amendments introduced last year.I recall asking seven times before vooke posted something. If you are so clever why didn't you provide the evidence without me having to follow and brow beat you?
Looks like IEBC only surrenders the certified copies of forms 34A,34B,and 34C once a Petition is filedNot true. The candidates have a right under the IEBC regulations. The refusal/ failure to deliver the same was one of the grounds for the adverse finding.
You are the biggest moron around here.Thanks again for helping our resident moron. This was part of the amendments introduced last year.I recall asking seven times before vooke posted something. If you are so clever why didn't you provide the evidence without me having to follow and brow beat you?QuoteLooks like IEBC only surrenders the certified copies of forms 34A,34B,and 34C once a Petition is filedNot true. The candidates have a right under the IEBC regulations. The refusal/ failure to deliver the same was one of the grounds for the adverse finding.
Which is why I said the only think you know is generic court proceedings. This is an election petition with special rules. Read them and stop embarrassing yourself.You think electoral laws change fundamental rules of evidence built into all litigation. :) You don't have to pretend to know everything, you know. No one is required to know everything under the sun.That you think that question is answered outside the laws of evidence ie Evidence Act/ common law case law on evidence says it all.
You think electoral laws change fundamental rules of evidence built into all litigation. :) You don't have to pretend everything, you know. No one is required to know everything under the sun.
So you think evidence act applies to all court proceedings - civil or criminal - leave alone petition ones? Please just admit you don't have the time to do because you're busy with your masters or the church...but of course you must spend the whole day imputing improper motive on Njoki. Njoki who as you saw - did her homework in law schools - so much they sent her abroad immediately she was done.YES!!!! :D Rules of evidence determine how you decide that a fact is a fact.You think electoral laws change fundamental rules of evidence built into all litigation. :) You don't have to pretend everything, you know. No one is required to know everything under the sun.
Not true. The candidates have a right under the IEBC regulations. The refusal/ failure to deliver the same was one of the grounds for the adverse finding.I meant SCOK only receives them in event of a petition.
Mwilu’s bit touching ICT evidence was that unreasonable failure to obey the court order on ICT audit makes IEBC guilty of the hacking claims
Njoki’s bit touching ICT is that the evidence presented did not meet the evidential threshold
So SCOK judges are no sheep to collectively analyze the evidence and share the conclusions.
I don’t know what the other 4 said about the contentious forms but certainly Njoki was not bound by their examination of the same
Explains why dissent is envisaged,and democracy prevails.
YES!!!! :D Rules of evidence determine how you decide that a fact is a fact.
Sure I'm busy writing a phD but that doesn't mean I can't comment. okay?
Why do PHD when your attitude toward scholarship is generally contemptuous. I hope it something religious - your passion for pastoral work is unparalleled I must admit. It would be a shame if you were to end in academia and nurture more people like you. I mean I am geek but I take the trouble to understand shiet.Like how you took trouble to learn ALL the applicable laws in litigation besides the elections acts and regulations? :D I'm studying people who need to constantly advertise that they are cleverer than everyone else all the time. Its interesting.YES!!!! :D Rules of evidence determine how you decide that a fact is a fact.
Sure I'm busy writing a phD but that doesn't mean I can't comment. okay?
As a judge hers is limited to analyzing the evidence presented before the court in plenary. She shall not aid either side. The matter had been canvassed through affidavits and oral responses in court.
The court had REJECTED Orengo's document with sumarries of the examination of the forms and equally Orengo objected to Ngatia offering evidence on the same. The judges were therefore bound by the evidence available. Just like 2013 the Judges had the forms but Njoki did not set aside 22 hours to go through each one having thrown away the affidavit introducing the evidence.
Similarly the affidavits introducing the IT evidence was thrown out on application.
Unless she was going to testify in court, she could not examine the forms or any primary evidence. Her so called findings must be tested by others especially the parties involved or who may suffer from her activism.
The most she could do was to bring her concerns to the entire court which if it had time could order a review of the report.
I simply do not believe that Jubilee and IEBC agents watched in silence as a report made claims about those forms then went ahead and apended their signatures to the report! I have a lot of respect for Ngatia (for reasons I can't disclose). He could never stand in court to say his side agreed to a report that he clearly knew to be false! Was he sabotaging Uhuru Kenyatta?
You are telling us that Kenyatta's advocates joined the IEBC and NASA to betray him!
The Civil Procedure provides for the process of admission of evidence.Mwilu’s bit touching ICT evidence was that unreasonable failure to obey the court order on ICT audit makes IEBC guilty of the hacking claims
Njoki’s bit touching ICT is that the evidence presented did not meet the evidential threshold
So SCOK judges are no sheep to collectively analyze the evidence and share the conclusions.
I don’t know what the other 4 said about the contentious forms but certainly Njoki was not bound by their examination of the same
Explains why dissent is envisaged,and democracy prevails.
Like how you took trouble to learn ALL the applicable laws in litigation besides the elections acts and regulations? :D I'm studying people who need to constantly advertise that they are cleverer than everyone else all the time. Its interesting.
As a judge hers is limited to analyzing the evidence presented before the court in plenary. She shall not aid either side. The matter had been canvassed through affidavits and oral responses in court.Thanks.
The court had REJECTED Orengo's document with sumarries of the examination of the forms and equally Orengo objected to Ngatia offering evidence on the same. The judges were therefore bound by the evidence available. Just like 2013 the Judges had the forms but Njoki did not set aside 22 hours to go through each one having thrown away the affidavit introducing the evidence.
Similarly the affidavits introducing the IT evidence was thrown out on application.
Unless she was going to testify in court, she could not examine the forms or any primary evidence. Her so called findings must be tested by others especially the parties involved or who may suffer from her activism.
The most she could do was to bring her concerns to the entire court which if it had time could order a review of the report.
I simply do not believe that Jubilee and IEBC agents watched in silence as a report made claims about those forms then went ahead and apended their signatures to the report! I have a lot of respect for Ngatia (for reasons I can't disclose). He could never stand in court to say his side agreed to a report that he clearly knew to be false! Was he sabotaging Uhuru Kenyatta?
You are telling us that Kenyatta's advocates joined the IEBC and NASA to betray him!
The Civil Procedure provides for the process of admission of evidence.
I do as hobby and on need basis. I read Prof Ojwang tort law tutorial when I was 17yr old waiting to join campus. If am going to comment on ICC - international crimes - I do the neccessary reading otherwise I keep off. The same with elections related matters. You come here with your ignorance and LOLS - and end up wasting everyone time. Omollo at least knows what he is talking about - a little shabby but not ignorant.You just boldly claimed the law of evidence doesn't apply to all, criminal/civil. Dude. Don't be talking about ignorance. You are its poster child. I don't pretend to know what I don't know, okay? And I don't die from being wrong. And I don't need to read all laws to know basics about how litigation is conducted. These are fundamental rules built into all litigation to ensure fairness to all parties. Don't try to hang on Omollo's coat tails after insulting him all over the place. It makes you look pathetic. You don't even understand what he is saying and why evidence cannot be sprung in a judgment.Like how you took trouble to learn ALL the applicable laws in litigation besides the elections acts and regulations? :D I'm studying people who need to constantly advertise that they are cleverer than everyone else all the time. Its interesting.
Omollo - Raila petition say the form is cooked. IEBC and Uhuru say it's not cooked. How better to resolve this than examine the forms that law provide to her.Or what was intention of giving her those forms ?. Isn't that why judges order for ballots to be re-opened and recounted in their presence?
The problem only arises because there is HUGE DESCREPANCY - both processes -Njokis and registar - should have yielded the same results.
Obviously somebody planted fakes in IEBC. The certified copies are either faked or the original faked.
As a judge hers is limited to analyzing the evidence presented before the court in plenary. She shall not aid either side. The matter had been canvassed through affidavits and oral responses in court.
The court had REJECTED Orengo's document with sumarries of the examination of the forms and equally Orengo objected to Ngatia offering evidence on the same. The judges were therefore bound by the evidence available. Just like 2013 the Judges had the forms but Njoki did not set aside 22 hours to go through each one having thrown away the affidavit introducing the evidence.
Similarly the affidavits introducing the IT evidence was thrown out on application.
Unless she was going to testify in court, she could not examine the forms or any primary evidence. Her so called findings must be tested by others especially the parties involved or who may suffer from her activism.
The most she could do was to bring her concerns to the entire court which if it had time could order a review of the report.
I simply do not believe that Jubilee and IEBC agents watched in silence as a report made claims about those forms then went ahead and apended their signatures to the report! I have a lot of respect for Ngatia (for reasons I can't disclose). He could never stand in court to say his side agreed to a report that he clearly knew to be false! Was he sabotaging Uhuru Kenyatta?
You are telling us that Kenyatta's advocates joined the IEBC and NASA to betray him!
The Civil Procedure provides for the process of admission of evidence.
The electoral agency submitted all result forms for scrutiny in order to give the Supreme Court a clear picture on how Kenyans voted on August 8.https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2001253102/presidential-petition-what-scrutiny-of-key-iebc-forms-revealed
A report, which was submitted by the registrar of that court Esther Nyaiyaki to the judges, seen by The Standard indicates 41,451 forms 34A were presented by Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) in the presence of President Uhuru Kenyatta’s agents together with those of National Super Alliance Presidential (NASA) candidate Raila Odinga.
The commission also presented 291 forms 34B and one form 34C which was used by its chairman Wafula Chebukati to announce the incumbent as the winner.
In court, Mr Raila submitted that his opponent was announced the winner minus evidence from 10,438 forms 34A.
This, according to the former Prime Minister, translated to seven million votes being not legally accounted for.
“I needed to ascertain the number of forms delivered. This was done by matching the index with the list of all constituencies per county against the forms received per constituency. As per our count we received 41,451 forms,” the registrar reported.
After ascertaining the count, the registrar went ahead to check whether IEBC had original forms and certified photocopies which were obtained by the returning officers to tally the results.
She noted that some of the documents handed over to her were carbon copies while others appeared to be photocopies.
Another observation was that forms 34A for Mandera West were not among those that had been submitted but they were provided upon request.
There were also 10 copies of scanned Forms 34A which were labelled illegible. Asked where the original forms were, the commission’s representatives explained that their originals were locked up in ballot boxes.
Ms Nyaiyaki also explained that she also noted other forms had not been stamped or signed.
Raila's representatives then requested that they should be allowed to further examine same forms in order to distinguish fake from genuine ones.
The team which was representing President Uhuru Kenyatta did not oppose the proposal, but said they also wanted to check each form that the other side checked.
On form 34C, the team noted that it had no security features and serial number. “The form looked like a photocopy,” she explained, adding that Uhuru's agents observed it was a photocopy of the original and had been certified by an advocate of High Court.
She said the same form had signatures from IEBC and other agents who were present in Bomas, except for the ODM agent. There was a comment that the agent declined to sign.
Out of the 291 forms 34B, the registrar noted that 236 had water marks. However, 56 of the same did not bear the security feature.
The report reads that 281 forms were signed by the returning officers and out of the lot, 225 forms had been signed and stamped by a returning officer.
Only 31 forms did not have a serial number and 32 others were not signed by the agents.
The team assessed 4,120 forms from randomly picked 32 constituencies and found 189 did not have hand over notes and 287 had no take over notes. Only 103 forms 34B had the notes.
On the floor of the court, IEBC had explained there was no need for hand over notes as the forms were being scanned and sent electronically to the returning officers in the constituencies and the National Tallying Center.
The registrar also observed that some of the forms 34A presented by IEBC were carbon copies while others did not bear the IEBC stamp.
“Some forms were scanned copies which were stamped while others were photocopies,” she said.
On the report, Raila's lawyer James Orengo said: "I can barely talk, I can't believe what am seeing. The two reports that you have accepted are two smoking guns. I was adding two more smoking guns."
"Most of the forms 34B have been signed by the returning officers and the agents. That demonstrates the fallacy that many forms 34A were missing is untrue," President Kenyatta's lawyer Fred Ngatia submitted.
He added: "There is no allegation that there is numerical difference between forms 34A and 34B. This fortifies what we have said all along that this was a fair credible election within the parameter of conducting an election."
IEBC lawyer Paul Muite said: "You cannot be asked to nullify a presidential election on suspicions. No one is challenging the numbers. You have not been told that the figures in forms 34A and 34B were cooked. Once you are satisfied about the figures, the sovereign will of the people was captured. Forms 34C was completed most perfectly as it was signed before everybody, and in front of the media."