IEBC and Uhuru Had Poor Defense and Bad Advocates

[Omollo]

• Tweet

Is it only me or did anybody else notice that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents had the worst possible defense?

ALL of them were at one point asked a simple question and ALL of them FAILED to even satisfy the court audience with their responses.

Mullah: He claimed that it was not true that the Presidential Election had more votes than the others. He was asked if he is saying that that claim is false. He fudged, over-spoke BUT failed to answer. It was clear that he had been caught lying.  Henceforth the principle of Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus attached itself on his forehead.

Muite: There were several instances with Muite. The most notable was about the servers. His response that the servers were in Europe (later US) elicited suppressed laughter. It came out that he was lying.

Muite: They had security features but it is not a requirement of the law
Maraga: Excuse me Mr. Muite, with regard to what you said about regulation 79 and 83, is it that there were no security features required on these forms?
Muite (emphatically): It is NOT a requirement of the law.
Maraga (Repeating): It is not a requirement of the law
Muite: No
Maraga:But, did these forms have the security features?
Muite: Yes
Maraga: So meaning if they had [the security features when being issued] they all should have?
Muite: Abundance of caution. The commision out of abundance of caution are the ones who designed the features
 
Then Justice Lenaola interrupts him:

Lenaola: Mr. Muite, before you move on, how do you explain the serial number... the lack of it?
Muite: Yes there is no serial number , that is admitted

 
In have a theory that Muite and Chebukati wanted to throw this case. Only time will tell:

I will move to the other advocates in the next portion. I leave you with the second most amusing exchange of the hearing:
 
I leave you with Senior Counsel Paul Kibugi Muite. I hope you will learn what fudging and filibustering really is:

[Kichwa]

Actually Pundit felt Muite threw away the case.  I just think everybody relied too much on the 2013 precedent and did not think these new judges on the bench would give this a fresh look.  Even Pundit bragged in the beginning that this was going to be an easy decision. Its very easy to get used to and to accept  injustice.  It only took 2007 and 2013 for Kenyans to not only accept votes to be stolen but to also accept it as the reality.  Magara has saved this country and people will dare to dream again.  Even the fact that Jubilee has overwhelming numbers is being treated as a fact and Jubilee supporters expect to win by astronomical numbers.

Is it only me or did anybody else notice that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents had the worst possible defense?

ALL of them were at one point asked a simple question and ALL of them FAILED to even satisfy the court audience with their responses.

Mullah: He claimed that it was not true that the Presidential Election had more votes than the others. He was asked if he is saying that that claim is false. He fudged, over-spoke BUT failed to answer. It was clear that he had been caught lying.  Henceforth the principle of Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus attached itself on his forehead.

Muite: There were several instances with Muite. The most notable was about the servers. His response that the servers were in Europe (later US) elicited suppressed laughter. It came out that he was lying.

Muite: They had security features but it is not a requirement of the law
Maraga: Excuse me Mr. Muite, with regard to what you said about regulation 79 and 83, is it that there were no security features required on these forms?
Muite (emphatically): It is NOT a requirement of the law.
Maraga (Repeating): It is not a requirement of the law
Muite: No
Maraga:But, did these forms have the security features?
Muite: Yes
Maraga: So meaning if they had [the security features when being issued] they all should have?
Muite: Abundance of caution. The commision out of abundance of caution are the ones who designed the features
 
Then Justice Lenaola interrupts him:

Lenaola: Mr. Muite, before you move on, how do you explain the serial number... the lack of it?
Muite: Yes there is no serial number , that is admitted

 
In have a theory that Muite and Chebukati wanted to throw this case. Only time will tell:

I will move to the other advocates in the next portion. I leave you with the second most amusing exchange of the hearing:
 
I leave you with Senior Counsel Paul Kibugi Muite. I hope you will learn what fudging and filibustering really is:

[Omollo]

KM

Maraga and served together on the court of appeal. They ruled in election cases. They had issues with section 83 which they felt contradicted the constitution. It is amazing that these lawyers did not apprehend or anticipate that Maraga and Mwilu (plus Lenaola) would be hostile to section 83, having clearly ruled against it in numerous cases in the recent past and that they adhered more to the constitution.

An old college mate sent the cases to me but I was too busy to read properly. Re-reading them again and noticing Orengo's submissions, I was left open mouthed. Just how did Jubile expect three judges with a long history of precedent setting records to alter their jurisprudence and still have a reputation?

They would in effect be denying their past judgments and admitting to a miscarriage of justice.

In Abdikhaim Osman Mohammed v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, the Court of Appeal, (Maraga JA (as he then was) J, Mwilu JA (as she then was) and Mwera JA) held that section 83 has been interpreted disjunctivelyas authorizing the nullification of an election only if the irregularities committed in the conduct of an election violate the Constitution or the electoral law or affect the result of an election

Here is another cited by Orengo:

The Honourable Justice Maraga JA in Joho v Nyange however trivial

The Court cannot appear to condone illegality in the election process, and
would therefore investigate any alleged breaches of the law, even where these were not in the pleadings but arose in the
course of the trial.

 

The dangers of shortcuts in law!

Kesho ndugu!

[Kichwa]

Thanks, that's amazing.  The respondent's failed to do basic research on the judges.

KM

Maraga and served together on the court of appeal. They ruled in election cases. They had issues with section 83 which they felt contradicted the constitution. It is amazing that these lawyers did not apprehend or anticipate that Maraga and Mwilu (plus Lenaola) would be hostile to section 83, having clearly ruled against it in numerous cases in the recent past and that they adhered more to the constitution.

An old college mate sent the cases to me but I was too busy to read properly. Re-reading them again and noticing Orengo's submissions, I was left open mouthed. Just how did Jubile expect three judges with a long history of precedent setting records to alter their jurisprudence and still have a reputation?

They would in effect be denying their past judgments and admitting to a miscarriage of justice.

In Abdikhaim Osman Mohammed v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, the Court of Appeal, (Maraga JA (as he then was) J, Mwilu JA (as she then was) and Mwera JA) held that section 83 has been interpreted disjunctivelyas authorizing the nullification of an election only if the irregularities committed in the conduct of an election violate the Constitution or the electoral law or affect the result of an election

Here is another cited by Orengo:

The Honourable Justice Maraga JA in Joho v Nyange however trivial

The Court cannot appear to condone illegality in the election process, and
would therefore investigate any alleged breaches of the law, even where these were not in the pleadings but arose in the
course of the trial.

 

The dangers of shortcuts in law!

Kesho ndugu!