Dissenting Opinions of Njoki and Ojwang

[vooke]

All well and good, I note that you are skeptical about the good judge's ruling that explicitly said that criminal acts were committed.

They said illegalities not criminal acts. While rigging is an illegality there is more to the term than just that. We just can't be certain.

Absolving Uhuru of wrong doing is quite telling. Do you think they would have said so if there was clear evidence of rigging in favor of Uhunye?

All said,rigging is not something you would put past the duo; with bottomless pockets and facing real threat from Babu,they may have attempted to compromise IEBC.

[vooke]

Internal consistency of what exactly?

Of the process.   That's what exactly.

I will ignore the electronic data bit as a common application of the term integrity.

Go for it.   But  I recall a lot of noise about servers and what-not in these elections, so I  thought it might be relevant.

IEBC has voters register, they have KIEMS kits,ballot papers and boxes...hardware. I also know the processes that were subject of the petition.

I am asking you to point out which of these does not touch on the results. Here they are;
1. Voting
2. Counting
3. Tallying
4. Transmission
5. Declaration.
6. Communication-pressers...
7. Custody

Come to think of it, I'm starting to believe that there's a false dichotomy between processes and results

[Kadame7]

All well and good, I note that you are skeptical about the good judge's ruling that explicitly said that criminal acts were committed.

Absolving Uhuru of wrong doing is quite telling. Do you think they would have said so if there was clear evidence of rigging in favor of Uhunye?

This is an assumption you and Robina are making: that if the court had found that the illegalities/irregularities favoured Jubilee, it would have indicted Jubilee along with the IEBC. Those are two separate things. If I was judging I would never say that if I caught A doing something that favored B, I would then automatically indict B without evidence of B's own wrongdoing just because he was the beneficiary of the wrong-doing of A. What the court said was that it did not find evidence of Uhuru's wrong doing. And indeed if Uhuru used IEBC, why would the court find otherwise without direct evidence of collusion?

[vooke]

All well and good, I note that you are skeptical about the good judge's ruling that explicitly said that criminal acts were committed.

Absolving Uhuru of wrong doing is quite telling. Do you think they would have said so if there was clear evidence of rigging in favor of Uhunye?

This is an assumption you and Robina are making: that if the court had found that the illegalities/irregularities favoured Jubilee, it would have indicted Jubilee along with the IEBC. Those are two separate things. If I was judging I would never say that if I caught A doing something that favored B, I would then automatically indict B without evidence of B's own wrongdoing just because he was the beneficiary of the party caught doing wrong-doing. What the court said was that it did not find evidence of Uhuru's wrong doing. And indeed if Uhuru used IEBC, why would the court find otherwise without direct evidence of collusion?

Good point. Still, there's zero proof of rigging so far.

[MOON Ki]

I am asking you to point out which of these does not touch on the results. Here they are;
1. Voting
2. Counting
3. Tallying
4. Transmission
5. Declaration.
6. Communication-pressers...
7. Custody

They will all "touch on the results" for the very simple reason that they are all part of a process that ultimately leads to "results".    But that is quite a different matter from what I was responding to, which was this:

With reference to an election, you can't define integrity without reference to the results.

Perhaps an example will help you: There are certain official  forms (34-whatever) that are supposed to be filled with numbers (results), that supposedly have some anti-mischief features, that are supposed to be signed by an authorized person, etc.     

Now consider these two scenarios:

(a) In some cases, the official 34-whatever forms have been filled in, signed by the appropriately authorized person, and so on, .... exactly as laid down in relevant procedures.

(b) In some other cases, the official 34-whatever forms have been replaced with pages from school "exercise books", have not been signed, .... and the relevant procedures have generally been flouted.

Taking (a) and (b) together---and without the slightest regard to the numbers they contain (a.k.a the results)---I am able to say that the overall handing of the forms has been inconsistent, lacks integrity, etc.   

Look, it seems obvious that you are hurting; but you might want to consider a different way of working through it, instead of working yourself into a lather.   Maybe Round 2 will, as you claim "vindicate" Uhuru; and maybe Marage will, as you say, be considered a "another crack judge who wasted Kenya's two months".   But that is still some ways off, and, in any case, life will still go on after that ... Maraga will still be CJ, etc.  So, it seems best that you try to achieve some internal peace right now. Perhaps something like what Uhuru has done ... get thoroughly drunk and blow off some steam for a few hours.    Or perhaps the RV-Pundit approach.   

My last on this thread, so best of luck to you!

[vooke]

I am asking you to point out which of these does not touch on the results. Here they are;
1. Voting
2. Counting
3. Tallying
4. Transmission
5. Declaration.
6. Communication-pressers...
7. Custody

They will all "touch on the results" for the very simple reason that they are all part of a process that ultimately leads to "results".    But that is quite a different matter from what I was responding to, which was this:

With reference to an election, you can't define integrity without reference to the results.

Perhaps an example will help you: There are certain official  forms (34-whatever) that are supposed to be filled with numbers (results), that supposedly have some anti-mischief features, that are supposed to be signed by an authorized person, etc.     

Now consider these two scenarios:

(a) In some cases, the official 34-whatever forms have been filled in, signed by the appropriately authorized person, and so on, .... exactly as laid down in relevant procedures.

(b) In some other cases, the official 34-whatever forms have been replaced with pages from school "exercise books", have not been signed, .... and the relevant procedures have generally been flouted.

Taking (a) and (b) together---and without the slightest regard to the numbers they contain (a.k.a the results)---I am able to say that the overall handing of the forms has been inconsistent, lacks integrity, etc.   

Look, it seems obvious that you are hurting; but you might want to consider a different way of working through it, instead of working yourself into a lather.   Maybe Round 2 will, as you claim "vindicate" Uhuru; and maybe Marage will, as you say, be considered a "another crack judge who wasted Kenya's two months".   But that is still some ways off, and, in any case, life will still go on after that ... Maraga will still be CJ, etc.  So, it seems best that you try to achieve some internal peace right now. Perhaps something like what Uhuru has done ... get thoroughly drunk and blow off some steam for a few hours.    Or perhaps the RV-Pundit approach.   

My last on this thread, so best of luck to you!

Both of your examples involve results FYI. You simply can't trust the contents of these documents. The contents are results.

You are the last of people I expected to get personal. You are not patel for heaven sake.

[bryan275]

All well and good, I note that you are skeptical about the good judge's ruling that explicitly said that criminal acts were committed.

They said illegalities not criminal acts. While rigging is an illegality there is more to the term than just that. We just can't be certain.

Absolving Uhuru of wrong doing is quite telling. Do you think they would have said so if there was clear evidence of rigging in favor of Uhunye?

All said,rigging is not something you would put past the duo; with bottomless pockets and facing real threat from Babu,they may have attempted to compromise IEBC.

breaking electoral law is a criminal offence

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I am asking you to point out which of these does not touch on the results. Here they are;
1. Voting
2. Counting
3. Tallying
4. Transmission
5. Declaration.
6. Communication-pressers...
7. Custody

They will all "touch on the results" for the very simple reason that they are all part of a process that ultimately leads to "results".    But that is quite a different matter from what I was responding to, which was this:

With reference to an election, you can't define integrity without reference to the results.

Perhaps an example will help you: There are certain official  forms (34-whatever) that are supposed to be filled with numbers (results), that supposedly have some anti-mischief features, that are supposed to be signed by an authorized person, etc.     

Now consider these two scenarios:

(a) In some cases, the official 34-whatever forms have been filled in, signed by the appropriately authorized person, and so on, .... exactly as laid down in relevant procedures.

(b) In some other cases, the official 34-whatever forms have been replaced with pages from school "exercise books", have not been signed, .... and the relevant procedures have generally been flouted.

Taking (a) and (b) together---and without the slightest regard to the numbers they contain (a.k.a the results)---I am able to say that the overall handing of the forms has been inconsistent, lacks integrity, etc.   

Look, it seems obvious that you are hurting; but you might want to consider a different way of working through it, instead of working yourself into a lather.   Maybe Round 2 will, as you claim "vindicate" Uhuru; and maybe Marage will, as you say, be considered a "another crack judge who wasted Kenya's two months".   But that is still some ways off, and, in any case, life will still go on after that ... Maraga will still be CJ, etc.  So, it seems best that you try to achieve some internal peace right now. Perhaps something like what Uhuru has done ... get thoroughly drunk and blow off some steam for a few hours.    Or perhaps the RV-Pundit approach.   

My last on this thread, so best of luck to you!

Both of your examples involve results FYI. You simply can't trust the contents of these documents. The contents are results.

You are the last of people I expected to get personal. You are not patel for heaven sake.

They involve results only to the extent of their meaninglessness.  They are unusable results because you can't say what they reflect.

[vooke]

I am asking you to point out which of these does not touch on the results. Here they are;
1. Voting
2. Counting
3. Tallying
4. Transmission
5. Declaration.
6. Communication-pressers...
7. Custody

They will all "touch on the results" for the very simple reason that they are all part of a process that ultimately leads to "results".    But that is quite a different matter from what I was responding to, which was this:

With reference to an election, you can't define integrity without reference to the results.

Perhaps an example will help you: There are certain official  forms (34-whatever) that are supposed to be filled with numbers (results), that supposedly have some anti-mischief features, that are supposed to be signed by an authorized person, etc.     

Now consider these two scenarios:

(a) In some cases, the official 34-whatever forms have been filled in, signed by the appropriately authorized person, and so on, .... exactly as laid down in relevant procedures.

(b) In some other cases, the official 34-whatever forms have been replaced with pages from school "exercise books", have not been signed, .... and the relevant procedures have generally been flouted.

Taking (a) and (b) together---and without the slightest regard to the numbers they contain (a.k.a the results)---I am able to say that the overall handing of the forms has been inconsistent, lacks integrity, etc.   

Look, it seems obvious that you are hurting; but you might want to consider a different way of working through it, instead of working yourself into a lather.   Maybe Round 2 will, as you claim "vindicate" Uhuru; and maybe Marage will, as you say, be considered a "another crack judge who wasted Kenya's two months".   But that is still some ways off, and, in any case, life will still go on after that ... Maraga will still be CJ, etc.  So, it seems best that you try to achieve some internal peace right now. Perhaps something like what Uhuru has done ... get thoroughly drunk and blow off some steam for a few hours.    Or perhaps the RV-Pundit approach.   

My last on this thread, so best of luck to you!

Both of your examples involve results FYI. You simply can't trust the contents of these documents. The contents are results.

You are the last of people I expected to get personal. You are not patel for heaven sake.

They involve results only to the extent of their meaninglessness.  They are unusable results because you can't say what they reflect.

While you may play word games and definitions, half of Kenya believes Babu was rigged out. The other half believes he was thrashed. The former believe SCOK has given Babu another lifeline just as the latter except at the expense of their victory. When he wins they will break into even more wilder cheer,they will say Babu has been vindicated.

What will the former say once Babu is thrashed? 'We can say what the results reflect'?

[MOON Ki]

Both of your examples involve results FYI. You simply can't trust the contents of these documents. The contents are results.

You are the last of people I expected to get personal. You are not patel for heaven sake.

I did state the I had given my last comment, but it seems necessary to return and say this: I did indeed get "personal", but it was not intended to be in a negative way, and I apologize if it came across that way.  I genuinely intended and hoped to give you some helpful advice.

Oh, if by "results" you mean everything that there is on just about everything, then yes.   As I indicate above, I have a simple-minded understanding of "results" in elections: for me they are the numbers on which winners and so forth are declared, the declarations based on said numbers, ...; I have learned something new.    Your interpretation is also interesting in this  way:  we should not interpret the SC's judgement to mean that the "process so tainted that the results are meaningless"; it now appears that the "results" themselves were hopelessly tainted.

Now, I'll definitely leave you guys to it.   

Peace, Love, and Unity.

[vooke]

Both of your examples involve results FYI. You simply can't trust the contents of these documents. The contents are results.

You are the last of people I expected to get personal. You are not patel for heaven sake.

I did state the I had given my last comment, but it seems necessary to return and say this: I did indeed get "personal", but it was not intended to be in a negative way, and I apologize if it came across that way.  I genuinely intended and hoped to give you some helpful advice.

Oh, if by "results" you mean everything that there is on just about everything, then yes.   As I indicate above, I have a simple-minded understanding of "results" in elections: for me they are the numbers on which winners and so forth are declared, the declarations based on said numbers, ...; I have learned something new.    Your interpretation is also interesting in this  way:  we should not interpret the SC's judgement to mean that the "process so tainted that the results are meaningless"; it now appears that the "results" themselves were hopelessly tainted.

Now, I'll definitely leave you guys to it.   

Peace, Love, and Unity.

Apologizing if is just as bad as not apologizing. Who told you I'm hurt and in need of a drink? If your pride can't suffer you to unconditionally apologize please keep it thank you.

The numbers used to declare winners and losers are recorded in these forms. That's exactly what I meant by results. Process v results is a false dichotomy; it's all about results.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

They will all "touch on the results" for the very simple reason that they are all part of a process that ultimately leads to "results".    But that is quite a different matter from what I was responding to, which was this:

With reference to an election, you can't define integrity without reference to the results.

Perhaps an example will help you: There are certain official  forms (34-whatever) that are supposed to be filled with numbers (results), that supposedly have some anti-mischief features, that are supposed to be signed by an authorized person, etc.     

Now consider these two scenarios:

(a) In some cases, the official 34-whatever forms have been filled in, signed by the appropriately authorized person, and so on, .... exactly as laid down in relevant procedures.

(b) In some other cases, the official 34-whatever forms have been replaced with pages from school "exercise books", have not been signed, .... and the relevant procedures have generally been flouted.

Taking (a) and (b) together---and without the slightest regard to the numbers they contain (a.k.a the results)---I am able to say that the overall handing of the forms has been inconsistent, lacks integrity, etc.   

Look, it seems obvious that you are hurting; but you might want to consider a different way of working through it, instead of working yourself into a lather.   Maybe Round 2 will, as you claim "vindicate" Uhuru; and maybe Marage will, as you say, be considered a "another crack judge who wasted Kenya's two months".   But that is still some ways off, and, in any case, life will still go on after that ... Maraga will still be CJ, etc.  So, it seems best that you try to achieve some internal peace right now. Perhaps something like what Uhuru has done ... get thoroughly drunk and blow off some steam for a few hours.    Or perhaps the RV-Pundit approach.   

My last on this thread, so best of luck to you!

Both of your examples involve results FYI. You simply can't trust the contents of these documents. The contents are results.

You are the last of people I expected to get personal. You are not patel for heaven sake.

They involve results only to the extent of their meaninglessness.  They are unusable results because you can't say what they reflect.

While you may play word games and definitions, half of Kenya believes Babu was rigged out. The other half believes he was thrashed. The former believe SCOK has given Babu another lifeline just as the latter except at the expense of their victory. When he wins they will break into even more wilder cheer,they will say Babu has been vindicated.

What will the former say once Babu is thrashed? 'We can say what the results reflect'?

Half of Kenya did not make the ruling.  Forgive me if that point is lost on me.  If Babu is trashed in an election with integrity, yes, we can say what the results reflect.

[GeeMail]

Suppose there was actually an attempt to compromise SCOK judges as media reports indicate, who or how should that be presented as an election offence? Is bribery of judges and threats to them in the course of adjudicating a petition considered an election offence?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Suppose there was actually an attempt to compromise SCOK judges as media reports indicate, who or how should that be presented as an election offence? Is bribery of judges and threats to them in the course of adjudicating a petition considered an election offence?

Yes, that would be an election offense.  That said, I think it is highly unlikely that they make that finding.  Because they already ruled - incorrectly IMO - that kamwana had no hand in the rigging and made no mention of the attempt to influence in the summary ruling.

[vooke]

Suppose there was actually an attempt to compromise SCOK judges as media reports indicate, who or how should that be presented as an election offence? Is bribery of judges and threats to them in the course of adjudicating a petition considered an election offence?

That is not an election offense

[GeeMail]

Suppose there was actually an attempt to compromise SCOK judges as media reports indicate, who or how should that be presented as an election offence? Is bribery of judges and threats to them in the course of adjudicating a petition considered an election offence?

That is not an election offense

On what basis do you say so? A presidential election petition appears in the constitution as part of the electoral process.

140.    
Questions as to validity of presidential election
(1) A person may file 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 filing of a petition under clause (1), the Supreme Court shall hear and determine the petition and its decision shall be final.
(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.

If voter bribery is considered an election offence then it beats logic if bribery of judges in an election petition is not equally considered an offence. In fact, bribing petition judges should attract more sanctions.