Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?

[Kadame7]

That's basically the spirit.  Verifying simply means he has checked to see if they are true or not.  He can then make notes or ignore it, if it changes nothing.  If he does not see the 34A, he can raise the alarm.  That said, I don't think any reasonable court would hold it against him if he were to announce the result with a single or even a few missing 34As.  But IEBC has to make good faith efforts to adhere to the checks and balances of these redundancies.

Bear in mind verification goes beyond arithmetical errors. But sticking with that. Supposing the total sum of errors means no candidate meets the constitutional threshold yet forms 34B suggests one does. The chairperson declares one as the outright winner and then immediately challenges its own declaration in court. Nonsensical.

Next, what happens when the chairperson receives forms 34B minus a significant number of 34As. Should he wait till he has all the forms or proceed with the 34B as it is? He has 7 days and the deadline is approaching. What to do?

Why do you think the chairman is prevented from approaching the court until/unless he does something worth challenging in court?

Why do you think I think he is?

You. Just reading what you're saying: Chebu suing himself, cant do anything etc. It all indicates you think IEBC can only go to court as a party accused of breaching the law, but never as a party who has done due diligence and wishes the court to provide orders enabling the accurate announcement of results

[vooke]

vooke, Mwilu says it was part of verification: meant to ensure identical results throughout transmissions. Its meant to catch manipulators.

He says he cant ammend. Not that he cant verify. Those laws were enacted to discourage any change/manipulation of forms at any stage of transmission.

He has the DUTY to verify. The point if these laws was to ensure any manipulation at any stage, polling to constituency to NTC, would be known. It was meant to discourage any temptations to change the forms. Mwilu said today it is meant to ensure that it is the exact same form that was transmitted at the polling that ends up at the NTC. Its alk designed with our election history in mind.

But declaration of results are not final.

What do you mean? Can Chebukati declare results and then change his mind?

I mean, as what is going on right now at the SCOK clearly demonstrates, that the declaration is not final. So yes, the verification exercises if followed and all its findings, has lots if uses elsewhere.

[vooke]

That's basically the spirit.  Verifying simply means he has checked to see if they are true or not.  He can then make notes or ignore it, if it changes nothing.  If he does not see the 34A, he can raise the alarm.  That said, I don't think any reasonable court would hold it against him if he were to announce the result with a single or even a few missing 34As.  But IEBC has to make good faith efforts to adhere to the checks and balances of these redundancies.

Bear in mind verification goes beyond arithmetical errors. But sticking with that. Supposing the total sum of errors means no candidate meets the constitutional threshold yet forms 34B suggests one does. The chairperson declares one as the outright winner and then immediately challenges its own declaration in court. Nonsensical.

Next, what happens when the chairperson receives forms 34B minus a significant number of 34As. Should he wait till he has all the forms or proceed with the 34B as it is? He has 7 days and the deadline is approaching. What to do?

Why do you think the chairman is prevented from approaching the court until/unless he does something worth challenging in court?

Why do you think I think he is?

You. Just reading what you're saying: Chebu suing himself, cant do anything etc. It all indicates you think IEBC can only go to court as a party accused of breaching the law, but never as a party who has done due diligence and wishes the court to provide orders enabling the accurate announcement of results

Preposterous that an election ends with the electoral body suing itself all in under 7 days to correct its own errors.

[RV Pundit]

Verification for me is a function of the court. The elections should be verifiable meaning all documents are kept.I don't see what role chebukati can do if results in lower level are final.Can he reject final results.If he cannot carry then that will mean wholesale rejection of so many results.its gonna be ridiculous.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Sawa. To each their own. Verifying means he must have all forms and check them against R.O. results. All variations will be noted before a court. This discourages R.O. games as he knows he will still be checked. Chebu is prevented from varying so that he doesnt attempt to screw with the results and make everything artificially match at NTC. I think it is perfect for the thieving Kenya negro.

Last attempt then Im done. If the R.O. is the final and no one else checks to ensure he has not manipulated anything, he can do what he wants. The fact the p.o sends to him and ntc simultaneously is so that he doesnt change anything. This is all "ABUDAS of caution" to make sure everyone just transmits and counts without changing anything knowing other people are doing the same.

For one, it could make a basis of his own petition against the declaration in a court.  If another party challenges IEBC, he could use the notes he made about it in his defense; ideally he should make the application in court himself if it the declaration is obviously wrong - relying on said verification.  Kadame mentions SCOK as one such arena where such verification can make life easy.  It can also discourage frivolous petitions.

[Kadame7]

Sawa. To each their own. Verifying means he must have all forms and check them against R.O. results. All variations will be noted before a court. This discourages R.O. games as he knows he will still be checked. Chebu is prevented from varying so that he doesnt attempt to screw with the results and make everything artificially match at NTC. I think it is perfect for the thieving Kenya negro.

Last attempt then Im done. If the R.O. is the final and no one else checks to ensure he has not manipulated anything, he can do what he wants. The fact the p.o sends to him and ntc simultaneously is so that he doesnt change anything. This is all "ABUDAS of caution" to make sure everyone just transmits and counts without changing anything knowing other people are doing the same.

For one, it could make a basis of his own petition against the declaration in a court.  If another party challenges IEBC, he could use the notes he made about it in his defense; ideally he should make the application in court himself if it the declaration is obviously wrong - relying on said verification.  Kadame mentions SCOK as one such arena where such verification can make life easy. It can also discourage frivolous petitions.

That's a very good point. If everything has been verified at every level, it makes petitions less likely where no monkey business is found and easily dispensible where it goes ahead and where monkey business has happened, it exposes it and makes the invalidation/other cure easier and even identifying persons for prosecution.

[vooke]

It cannot be denied that the Chairperson of the appellant has a significant constitutional role under Sub- Article (10) of Article 138 as the authority with the ultimate mandate of making the declaration that brings to finality the presidential election process. Of course before he makes that declaration his role is to accurately tally all the results exactly as received from the 290 returning officers country-wide, without adding, subtracting, multiplying or dividing any number contained in the two forms from the constituency tallying centre. If any verification or confirmation is anticipated, it has to relate only to confirmation and verification that the candidate to be declared elected president has met the threshold set under Article 138(4), by receiving more than half of all the votes cast in that election; and at least twenty- five per cent of the votes cast in each of more than half of the counties.

The only other verification or confirmation that we can envisage and is in fact conceded by the appellant itself in paragraphs 53-57 of the submissions relate to accountability of the ballot. For instance, the number of ballot papers issued out to the constituencies, the number of ballot papers issued to and correctly used by voters, the number of spoilt ballot papers and the number of ballot papers remaining unused, which process is verified against Form 34. Any changes to what was counted, confirmed and verified at the constituency level before transmission is manifestly outside his powers and competence. It could well be tantamount to a serious assault on the will of the people of Kenya and an impermissible breach of the Constitution.

[vooke]

[That's a very good point. If everything has been verified at every level, it makes petitions less likely where no monkey business is found and easily dispensible where it goes ahead and where monkey business has happened, it exposes it and makes the invalidation/other cure easier and even identifying persons for prosecution.

Please look at my previous  post where I posted excerpts of Kiai case regarding verification.

Before we get to merits of verification,look at the highlighted

[vooke]

Njoki is trashing Kiai case. 34B are redundant

[vooke]

A returning officer who 'verifies' and makes 'public note' of his subject yet he is supposed to be accurate is BS

Hoping IEBC follows through on this.

[vooke]

Supreme Court now says IEBC chairman must verify 40K forms 34A but after verifying should not alter.IMPOSSIBLE & RIDICULOUS @ahmednasirlaw

— KIPCHUMBA MURKOMEN, E.G.H (@kipmurkomen) September 20, 2017

[Kadame7]

A returning officer who 'verifies' and makes 'public note' of his subject yet he is supposed to be accurate is BS

Hoping IEBC follows through on this.

Don't see how they can follow through on anything. If you've had a chance to read the judgment, the section on this issue is settled now. The court agreed with the COA and HC judgments and restated that the statutory duties for verification on all polling stations forms remain in full force. There's no way the IEBC can challenge this now IMO. It's done and now there's a SCOK judgment on the same issue.

[vooke]

A returning officer who 'verifies' and makes 'public note' of his subject yet he is supposed to be accurate is BS

Hoping IEBC follows through on this.

Don't see how they can follow through on anything. If you've had a chance to read the judgment, the section on this issue is settled now. The court agreed with the COA and HC judgments and restated that the statutory duties for verification on all polling stations forms remain in full force. There's no way the IEBC can challenge this now IMO. It's done and now there's a SCOK judgment on the same issue.

It can be challenged for its inconsistency.
Kiai case banned any form of verification, SCOK claims the judgement did not
SCOK was way too casual on Kiai case

Then again, definition of exactly what 'verification' entails seeing it excludes correcting any errors

And finally, the relevance of such an impotent exercise

[Kadame7]

A returning officer who 'verifies' and makes 'public note' of his subject yet he is supposed to be accurate is BS

Hoping IEBC follows through on this.

Don't see how they can follow through on anything. If you've had a chance to read the judgment, the section on this issue is settled now. The court agreed with the COA and HC judgments and restated that the statutory duties for verification on all polling stations forms remain in full force. There's no way the IEBC can challenge this now IMO. It's done and now there's a SCOK judgment on the same issue.

It can be challenged for its inconsistency.
Kiai case banned any form of verification, SCOK claims the judgement did not
SCOK was way too casual on Kiai case

Then again, definition of exactly what 'verification' entails seeing it excludes correcting any errors

And finally, the relevance of such an impotent exercise

The court already determined the claim of inconsistency. Just read the judgment. It heard it and dismissed it and restated the right position. "Challenge" it at this point is just a rejection of a determination settled yesterday.

And what would be the impossibility of compliance involved here? Is IEBC claiming it lacks capacity to verify at all levels as ordered or is it refusung to do so because it deems the exercise pointless? It doesnt get to set aside duties it deems pointless. It just has to do what the law requires it to do at all stages and these have been made clear in the statutes and judgments.

[vooke]

The court already determined the claim of inconsistency. Just read the judgment. It heard it and dismissed it and restated the right position. "Challenge" it at this point is just a rejection of a determination settled yesterday.

And what would be the impossibility of compliance involved here? Is IEBC claiming it lacks capacity to verify at all levels as ordered or is it refusung to do so because it deems the exercise pointless? It doesnt get to set aside duties it deems pointless. It just has to do what the law requires it to do at all stages and these have been made clear in the statutes and judgments.

I have read it over and over, all the 20 instances the decision is referenced.

[Kadame7]

Where are they saying 34 Bs are provisional?

[vooke]

Where are they saying 34 Bs are provisional?

[Kadame7]

Where are they saying 34 Bs are provisional?

But do they really say that? That 34 C is not generated from 34 B?

[vooke]

Where are they saying 34 Bs are provisional?

But do they really say that? That 34 C is not generated from 34 B?

[Kadame7]

They are saying 34 As are not "irrelevant". They are not saying that 34 Bs thereby are. In other words, all of them matter. IEBC must verify every single result it receives at all stages, including NTC.