Why did Chebukati lock other candidates out

[Kichwa]

• Tweet

Anybody knows why other presidential candidates were locked out.  I hope Chebukati has a strong legal basis to do so otherwise he is just inviting another time wasting law suit.

[Kadame7]

Anybody knows why other presidential candidates were locked out.  I hope Chebukati has a strong legal basis to do so otherwise he is just inviting another time wasting law suit.

Why the HELL would he do that? If true, evidence of this before a court tomorrow should yield tangible results in my very HUMBLE opinion. I mean we've gone past pretenses here and straight into "mtado?" territory....

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I am not sure what this is about?  Is there a link I am missing somewhere?

Never mind.  If this goes to court, Chebukati will be forced to allow other candidates.  At a minimum those candidates that ran in the nullified election.

That aside, it's not clear what Ekuru Aukot hopes to accomplish by running.

[RV Pundit]

I think re-run is for all candidates.

[patel]

Scok has not released full ruling and Chebukati is busy trying to organize rerun. We still don't have full report on servers,  we do not know who gave chirchir Iebc servers access.  We do not know who was logging in as Chebukati. ...at this point NASA through its lawyer they can even hire miguna should come out and say until what went wrong with iebc is fixed we will not take part in those election because iebc is begging for chaos and loss of life.

[Kadame7]

Scok has not released full ruling and Chebukati is busy trying to organize rerun. We still don't have full report on servers,  we do not know who gave chirchir Iebc servers access.  We do not know who was logging in as Chebukati. ...at this point NASA through its lawyer they can even hire miguna should come out and say until what went wrong with iebc is fixed we will not take part in those election because iebc is begging for chaos and loss of life.

100% agreed. Look, we already know what people involved are capable of. No point in legitimizing it.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Scok has not released full ruling and Chebukati is busy trying to organize rerun. We still don't have full report on servers,  we do not know who gave chirchir Iebc servers access.  We do not know who was logging in as Chebukati. ...at this point NASA through its lawyer they can even hire miguna should come out and say until what went wrong with iebc is fixed we will not take part in those election because iebc is begging for chaos and loss of life.

100% agreed. Look, we already know what people involved are capable of. No point in legitimizing it.

Yep.  At a minimum they should wait until the SCOK explains what went wrong.  Instead they are going about creating potential new issues, putting the little legitimacy they have left at risk.

[Kadame7]

I am not sure what this is about?  Is there a link I am missing somewhere?

Never mind.  If this goes to court, Chebukati will be forced to allow other candidates.  At a minimum those candidates that ran in the nullified election.

That aside, it's not clear what Ekuru Aukot hopes to accomplish by running.

Oh, so NASA was involved? I thought the claim was that they met Jubilee alone.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I am not sure what this is about?  Is there a link I am missing somewhere?

Never mind.  If this goes to court, Chebukati will be forced to allow other candidates.  At a minimum those candidates that ran in the nullified election.

That aside, it's not clear what Ekuru Aukot hopes to accomplish by running.

Oh, so NASA was involved? I thought the claim was that they met Jubilee alone.

Yes.  It looks like IEBC is treating all the other parties as irrelevant.  I mean these guys paid like a million bucks to run.  So there is probably going to be some court cases and reversals.  I prefer the other parties to stay out.  But it has to be through a legal process.

[Kadame7]

I am not sure what this is about?  Is there a link I am missing somewhere?

Never mind.  If this goes to court, Chebukati will be forced to allow other candidates.  At a minimum those candidates that ran in the nullified election.

That aside, it's not clear what Ekuru Aukot hopes to accomplish by running.

Oh, so NASA was involved? I thought the claim was that they met Jubilee alone.

Yes.  It looks like IEBC is treating all the other parties as irrelevant.  I mean these guys paid like a million bucks to run.  So there is probably going to be some court cases and reversals.  I prefer the other parties to stay out.  But it has to be through a legal process.

Yes, it's a fresh election. Not a round two. I think Chebukati is confusing those two.

[Omollo]

Jubilee is afraid Raila will tosha someone else win and then undertake constitutional changes to institute Parliamentary democracy and dump the executive presidency.

[Kichwa]

could it be because they conceded and did not challenge.  I am sure he consulted with his lawyers.  I cannot wait for the legal explanation but I do not think he is confusing a re-run from new elections.

I am not sure what this is about?  Is there a link I am missing somewhere?

Never mind.  If this goes to court, Chebukati will be forced to allow other candidates.  At a minimum those candidates that ran in the nullified election.

That aside, it's not clear what Ekuru Aukot hopes to accomplish by running.

Oh, so NASA was involved? I thought the claim was that they met Jubilee alone.

Yes.  It looks like IEBC is treating all the other parties as irrelevant.  I mean these guys paid like a million bucks to run.  So there is probably going to be some court cases and reversals.  I prefer the other parties to stay out.  But it has to be through a legal process.

Yes, it's a fresh election. Not a round two. I think Chebukati is confusing those two.

[Kadame7]

could it be because they conceded and did not challenge.  I am sure he consulted with his lawyers.  I cannot wait for the legal explanation but I do not think he is confusing a re-run from new elections.

I am not sure what this is about?  Is there a link I am missing somewhere?

Never mind.  If this goes to court, Chebukati will be forced to allow other candidates.  At a minimum those candidates that ran in the nullified election.

That aside, it's not clear what Ekuru Aukot hopes to accomplish by running.

Oh, so NASA was involved? I thought the claim was that they met Jubilee alone.

Yes.  It looks like IEBC is treating all the other parties as irrelevant.  I mean these guys paid like a million bucks to run.  So there is probably going to be some court cases and reversals.  I prefer the other parties to stay out.  But it has to be through a legal process.

Yes, it's a fresh election. Not a round two. I think Chebukati is confusing those two.

What would concessions have to do with anything? IEBC is not there to pull an "estoppel" on anyone. Concessions mean the individuals believed the elections were free and fair. The SCOK has now corrected that misperception. So how or why should this affect anyone? I don't get it. This concession argument makes no sense to me. The law was different when all these concessions were made.

Furthermore, even if they were bound to their concession, this is a different election. I can think of no reason why rights to participate in it should be tied to what a candidate did vis-a-vis an old and dead election.

[Higgins the genius]

Based on 2013 Supreme Court Ruling

[yulemsee]

Jubilee is afraid Raila will tosha someone else win and then undertake constitutional changes to institute Parliamentary democracy and dump the executive presidency.

In which paliament, the one that jubilee controls?

[vooke]

KM,
Others were locked out supposedly on the basis of 2013 ruling. It was held that if other candidates never petitioned against the declaration they are deemed to have conceded or something. But I hear Aukot is going to court. Gives him another excuse to grace our tvs. Negro is a socialite I swear

For those who have been asking about the definition of a fresh election as given by the Supreme Court. Here you go! pic.twitter.com/cKpHlUZleN

— Oliver Mathenge (@OliverMathenge) September 4, 2017

[Kadame7]

Thanks Higgins. Wow! So its the 2013 decision. Everything in me disagrees with that reasoning. If the court found that the elections were not properly conducted per the law so that it was invalid as it now has, why should other candidates be barred from participating in one that is properly conducted?

EDIT: Actually, no: It apparently is a constitutional provision, not only the 2013 decision. It's basically a run-off.  Perhaps it was meant to ensure we wouldn't have three elections in one year. But it doesn't make sense to me. Shouldn't a credible election be the interests of everyone?

Based on 2013 Supreme Court Ruling

[MOON Ki]

Thanks Higgins. Wow! So its the 2013 decision. Everything in me disagrees with that reasoning. If the court found that the elections were not properly conducted per the law so that it was invalid as it now has, why should other candidates be barred from participating in one that is properly conducted?

EDIT: Actually, no: It apparently is a constitutional provision, not only the 2013 decision. It's basically a run-off.  Perhaps it was meant to ensure we wouldn't have three elections in one year. But it doesn't make sense to me. Shouldn't a credible election be the interests of everyone?

I'm not entirely sure about that one.   To my mind, your original question is worth debating.

[Kadame7]

Thanks Higgins. Wow! So its the 2013 decision. Everything in me disagrees with that reasoning. If the court found that the elections were not properly conducted per the law so that it was invalid as it now has, why should other candidates be barred from participating in one that is properly conducted?

EDIT: Actually, no: It apparently is a constitutional provision, not only the 2013 decision. It's basically a run-off.  Perhaps it was meant to ensure we wouldn't have three elections in one year. But it doesn't make sense to me. Shouldn't a credible election be the interests of everyone?

I'm not entirely sure about that one.   To my mind, your original question is worth debating.

I am thinking of their reconciling of the meaning of "fresh" elections in the constitution. I didn't even realize there was a whole debate about that in 2013. I'm gonna re-read the provisions for myself absent the SCOK interpretation and see if I can come up with a different way to understand that term and how it has been used.

[MOON Ki]

I am thinking of their reconciling of the meaning of "fresh" elections in the constitution. I didn't even realize there was a whole debate about that in 2013. I'm gonna re-read the provisions for myself absent the SCOK interpretation and see if I can come up with a different way to understand that term and how it has been used.

I'll be interested to see what you come up with.    Off the top of my head ... I can't recall anything in the relevant parts of the Constitution that would easily lead to "lock out those people who didn't complain".