Supreme Court will overturn the Ballot Row Ruling

[vooke]

• Tweet

And then the usual suspects' confidence in Judiciary will vamoz in a New York Minute.

Al Ghurair MUST print the ballots

[vooke]

Supreme Court agrees with IEBC that it is impractical to retender. So do we cancel/postpone the election or proceed with one which lacked public participation?

NASA failed to demonstrate why not A Ghurair. They certainly won't cry foul , and unlike the 2013 petition, they can't argue that their evidence was rejected. Here they have none

So for the next 5yrs from 2017 to 2022, the narrative will shift from '2.5M more votes for presidential election above any other election' to Al Ghurair-Gate. Don't confuse them with facts

Press Release - 10th July 2017 - Procurement of Presidential Ballot Papers #Ballot2017 pic.twitter.com/jGqexcKJzd

— IEBC (@IEBCKenya) July 10, 2017

[Nefertiti]

May they do no such thing. Simply retender and postpone the elections. The sky won't cave.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

May they do no such thing. Simply retender and postpone the elections. The sky won't cave.

They seem convinced that it is only practical to break the law.

[MOON Ki]

May they do no such thing. Simply retender and postpone the elections. The sky won't cave.

Exactly.  Even in our sort of circus, in which 4+ years of advance notice apparently means nothing, people should still  aim for something that can pass muster.   

[vooke]

facts and evidence placed before us do not lead to the conclusion that there was bias or that the tender process was carried in such a way that it was result-oriented and carefully tended to ensure the only outcome was that the 1st Interested Party will end up with the tender.

The ruling
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/export/138205/pdf

[Omollo]

This is the judgment being lambasted and one of the three judges pilloried by Uhuru Kenyatta. Pity you should find anything worth highlighting

[vooke]

This is the judgment being lambasted and one of the three judges pilloried by Uhuru Kenyatta. Pity you should find anything worth highlighting

No bias, no integrity issues yet NASA won't shut up. If there is not proof or perception of bias , you create one by making noise.

It's 2013 again where all their arguments were thrown out but for 4yrs they've been singing about 2.5M stolen votes

[RV Pundit]

Nobody has proven anything untoward that AlGurair has done - so this contract will be re-awarded to them.

Yesterday during public participatation - NASA - did not present any evidence that would dissuade IEBC from awarding it back.

Al Gurair according to IEBC were and are still best placed to execute the contract.

[Omollo]

NASA has achieved its objectives.

NASA is making no noise.

Pundit jubilee is free to award the contract back to Al Ghurair. Ruto will store the ballots and transport them. His company got the contract. Would be terrible if it was done by Specter.

[vooke]

Were they misquoted or what?
They said they won't re-tender the printing

[RV Pundit]

NASA objective is to discredit IEBC. And the courts are helping them achieving this objective. It upon IEBC to realize whatever they do - NASA - will not accept it - but they have a job to deliver credible, free and fair election on the 9th August and let the chips fall wherever.

NASA has achieved its objectives.

NASA is making no noise.

Pundit jubilee is free to award the contract back to Al Ghurair. Ruto will store the ballots and transport them. His company got the contract. Would be terrible if it was done by Specter.

[Kichwa]

NASA's obligations is to make sure the thieves do not steal elections again. It's a very noble goal, don't you agree?

NASA objective is to discredit IEBC. And the courts are helping them achieving this objective. It upon IEBC to realize whatever they do - NASA - will not accept it - but they have a job to deliver credible, free and fair election on the 9th August and let the chips fall wherever.

NASA has achieved its objectives.

NASA is making no noise.

Pundit jubilee is free to award the contract back to Al Ghurair. Ruto will store the ballots and transport them. His company got the contract. Would be terrible if it was done by Specter.

[Omollo]

NASA objective is to discredit IEBC. And the courts are helping them achieving this objective. It upon IEBC to realize whatever they do - NASA - will not accept it - but they have a job to deliver credible, free and fair election on the 9th August and let the chips fall wherever.

I could have asked you to offer some proof of that claim but knowing you will not, I opt to address those claims:

One can not give a dog a bad name used to mean a person who behaved badly before would still be expected to behave badly even if he has since reformed. Sadly that's not the case with the IEBC:

1. Three weeks to elections and we still have not seen the Published Voter Register
2. The IEBC denied having ghost voters when fighting an audit demand by CORD: KPMG confirmed our fears 2.9 persons unqualified to be voters
3. 1M plus double registered carefully spread around the county (thus giving the IEBC nearly 3 million floating voters to use at will)
4. The dogged efforts to award the contract to Al Ghurair would elicit a reaction from you if it was not Jubilee behind it

Lastly, Uhuru said "The Courts are frustrating us". I asked one bozo here to show me what case Jubilee has brought before the courts and been frustrated. Uhuru then named the ballot papers case. Why would Uhuru get frustrated by the frustrations of IEBC? Is it because the IEBC and Jubilee are one and the same?

Message: Why is Jubilee demanding the names of NASA agents? They are getting exasperated pushing their stooges in IEBC to get the list? Is Matiangi in that kind of hurry? Mtapewa list

[vooke]

NASA's mouthpiece
Invalid Tweet ID

[vooke]

Note to Jubilee;

70. What I understand by that position that if a Court of law has pronounced itself on a matter and the parties view that as the correct legal position, there ought to be no valid objection to the same Court entertaining a subsequent matter in which similar issues are involved if the parties insist that the Court must do so. Where the parties are of he view that the matter in controversy has been decided, save for the option of an appeal where one is provided, parties are expected to order their lives in accordance with the said decision since courts of law are meant to set the law straight so that litigants may predict the outcome of their actions and either avoid taking a particular course or order their lives in accordance therewith. Therefore where the Court has pronounced itself on a matter, parties to the subsequent proceedings where the legal issues are similar ought not to seek that the same be heard by different judges in the hope of obtaining a different outcome.

In short, if Odunga made a ruling and you are satisfied with it, unless you are appealing that decision, you shouldn't expect another judge in the same court to hear you out and arrive at a different ruling.

A litigant seeking disqualification of a Judge from sitting on the ground of appearance of bias must raise the objection at the earliest opportunity...The right to object to a disqualified adjudicator may be waived, and this may be so, even where the disqualification is statutory. The Court normally insists that the objection shall be taken as soon as the party prejudiced knows the facts, which entitle him to object. If, after he or his advisors know of the disqualification, they let the proceedings to continue without protest, they are held to have waived their objection and the determination cannot be challenged...A litigant who has knowledge of the facts that give rise to apprehension of possibility of bias ought not to be permitted to keep his objection up the sleeve until he finds that he has not succeeded. The court must guard against litigants who all too often blame their losses in court cases to bias on the part of the Judge. Success or failure of the government or any other litigant is neither ground for praise or for condemnation of a court. What is important is whether the decisions are good in law, and whether they are justifiable in relation to the reasons given for them. There is a fundamental tendency for the decisions of the Courts with which there is disagreement to be attacked by impugning the integrity of the Judges, rather than by examining the reasons for the judgement. Decisions of our courts are not immune from criticism but political discontent or dissatisfaction with the outcome of the case is no justification for recklessly attacking the integrity of judicial officer

To seek the recusal of a Judge from hearing a matter simply on the ground that he has determined a matter with similar facts is an implication that there is a likelihood that another Judge will arrive at a different decision. In my view, instead of subjecting another Judge of concurrent jurisdiction to an embarrassing situation of arriving at a different decision, parties ought to be advised by their legal counsel to appeal the decision instead and the law provides for mechanism for protection of a party while it is pursuing an appeal. By asking another Judge to hear the matter, based on recusal there would be an expectation that that other Judge may arrive at a decision different from the decision arrived at by the Court referring the matter. Whereas a Judge of the High Court is not bound by a decision of a Court of concurrent jurisdiction, to deliberately set out to have another Judge arrive at a different decision is in my view a manifestation of bad faith. If the matter were to be heard by a different Judge of concurrent jurisdiction and a different decision is arrived at there would be two conflicting decisions of the Court and the perception created would be that the Respondent chose a Judge who was sympathetic to its cause. If that were to happen the citizens of this Country would be led to believe that justice depends on a particular Judge rather than the rule of law and that belief would bring the whole judicial process into disrepute and embarrassment.

http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/132278/

So attacking OdingaOdunga is pointless. What matters is whether it is practical to retender

[vooke]

Still in the Court of Appeal...will finish the ballot papers case by 9 this evening...@Paul_Muite @DonaldBKipkorir @WehliyeMohamed pic.twitter.com/TqcrwoGO7z

— Ahmednasir Abdullahi SC (@ahmednasirlaw) July 14, 2017

[vooke]

At 10.30 today a five judge bench of the Court of Appeal will deliver judgment on IEBC appeal on the ballot papers case @DonaldBKipkorir

— Ahmednasir Abdullahi SC (@ahmednasirlaw) July 20, 2017

[RV Pundit]

Let hope they will restore our confidence in judiciary by letting IEBC do it's job as constitutionally independent body.

[vooke]

As I said