Dude, you're the one who doesn't understand court proceedings and SCORK procedure!
IEBC, meaning BOTH Githu and Mahat FOUGHT to have that original form 34A admitted. ALL THREE Main Azimio lawyers, Orengo, Feroze, and Murgor, FOUGHT against its admission, claiming Mahat was converting himself into a witness and would need to be cross-examined on the form he was presenting without an affidavit. Githu's rejoinder to that argument was that it was the original of a certified copy they had already filed in evidence in their main response, with an affidavit, so the Court allowed them to present the original.
Let me describe it in steps.
1) Why were IEBC presenting the form? To rebut Soweto's earlier evidence from the portal (in her live demonstration), and insisted that that represented new evidence (the live demo from the portal! referencing the portal 34A) so they said they should be allowed to present the original to the Court so that the court could see that the name Jose Carmago was not on the form itself! They even accused Soweto of misleading the court!
2) Kina Orengo then fought the admission of the original on the basis that Mahat was introducing evidence without a witness (yaani he was giving testimony and should be cross-examined, because only witnesses produce exhibits either via affidat or oral examination, and in the latter, can be crossed on it!). Koome allowed it on the basis that it was rebutting Soweto's reference to the portal copy of the 34A earlier and they even said they had looked at the docs presented to the Court during break to ensure the online form wasn't already on record and when they discovered it wasn't, they deemed it new evidence and resolved to permit IEBC to rebut it. . . Which they normally wouldn't be allowed to do because Respondents don't have a right of rejoinder after Petitioner's rejoinder.
3) After MAHAT (NOT Murgor!) handed the original to the Court, Murgor then stood and said, basically, 'Fine. If you're going to admit it, then look at the UDA agents and the dates on which they signed!'
4) Mwilu then looked at it and wrongly assumed Murgor was impugning UDA, and said, basically, 'But your own Azimio agent also signed on that date! Why point to UDA only?'
5) Murgor then answered, 'Our position is not that only the UDA's signature is fishy; We're saying all of them are fakes, because the doc is not genuine.'
So only two people introduced new evidence:
1) Soweto earlier in the day, in response to Koome's questions (not even Mwilu!), referred to the portal version of the 34A in her live demo.
2) Mahat, later in the afternoon, to rebut Soweto's submissions, produced the original of the
same 34A.
You won't find Mwilu or Murgor anywhere there
Topic: Prediction of Supreme Court decision on 2022 contest (Read 3216 times)