The commission and the secretariat. The commission as far I can tell deal with policy issues. The secretariat deal with operation. How meetings are conducted, how lawyers are hired, and all that I guess is more complicated than four commissioners meeting under a tree, and deciding as the majority. I assume they are procedures for all that...including calling a formal meeting. I assume they are also powers that Chebukati has the chair has, power the CEO has, and then commissioners. Check and balance to avoid rogue people transacting IEBC business in a forest. I assume for example the Chairperson calls the meeting.
SCORK in 2017 dug their hole by going into IEBC processes - hence the petition are becoming more and more complicated and detailed - unlike 2013 where Mutunga nailed it.
SCORK have to go back to constitution and realize the 14 days were deliberate - presidential election are not stuff that are to played with - or annualing them should be rare very rare - unless it's TOTALLY MESSED UP - SCORK should have refused the invite to audit IEBC processes.
SCORK should focus on the real stuff - ballots, paper trail, agent copies, observer copies, open the ballots - like Mutunga did in 2013 - and avoid temptation to go into black hole without an end where people are making outrageous allegations - and you have 14 days to examine truck loads.
Election is simple...people went to their polling station and voted..votes counted...result submitted to Chebukati and CRO. Raila give us evidence of ALL POLLING STATIONS THAT WERE RIGGED. Chebukati bring all the forms where allegation are. Ruto bring your evidence only on those polling stations. If they are serious dispute - open ballots, summon POS, CROS - of specific pollign stations In fact SCORK should issue a prescribed form - where Raila fills all the polling stations he is disputing their results -- he surely cannot dispute results in Luo Nyanza or maybe he will - let him indicate what the nature of dispute in those polling station are - numbers deducted- similar to IEBC error or discrepancy report.
The 2nd part of Uhuru temporary incumbency doesnt belong to this thread. It's clear Uhuru cannot appoint anybody now.
Their rules say they only need 3 for a meeting, 4 for Commission actions. But you need to read the regulations in full to know for sure (which I haven't, I only read it last week in part during quorum debate).
But this is not a simple technicality because of the unique circumstances of the moment, so the Court will have to rule on it.
Bottom line for me is that OUR CONSTITUTION is inadequately designed to resolve all these burgeoning crises. If Donald Korir is right, and that law he cites is still active, it means we also have no acting IG because even Uhuru cannot appoint Matiangi as Kipkorir is demanding, no matter what that law prescribes. SCOK is not Jesus, how are they supposed to resolve all these things? If I were them, I'd find a quick solution to the singular question of the disputed election declaration only. After that, let people take questions to lower courts to resolve the other Constitutional questions.
