What Will Happen if Raila Does NOT Run

[Omollo]

Kibe was giving them a way to pretend to ignore that interpretation by pretending it was non-binding,  Maybe that's where the hope comes from.

But in the end he too agreed there was simply no way out unless the SCOK vacated that. However the order was made 21 days ago and it is already overtaken by events. There is only one other way but I don't see how it could work. I will reveal next week

Kibe blames the IEBC instead of Githu.

[Kadame7]

That is tortured argument. There is no long process. There is nomination and election. If you withdraw from election - then candidate become un-opposed. If you die - before it - then we have new nomination. In any case why are we even worried about this - Let NASA do their thing - and we shall see. Just refuse to participate.

Pundit, methinks the situation where there are no available/willing candidates to be president except one is not the same as where someone(s) withdraws just before the election at the tail end of a very long process. Methinks the first envisages a situation where no one wants/is qualified to be president except one and that this situation is all very clear to the electorate as/before it happens.

If that's true, why do you think death of candidates results in a fresh election? The situation is the same, no? You have only one candidate left standing at the end.  Why not elect him "unopposed" as there is no one else but one? Because things at the end are different from things at the beginning. The electorate can now reconfigure and nominate someone else. But as Omollo wisely reminds us, it doesn't matter. Githu already made sure in 2013 that this section was rewritten and Chebukati is planning the election on the basis of that Githu-fed reading. So yeah, let us wait.

[Omollo]

When will the nomination for this planned election take place bro?

That is tortured argument. There is no long process. There is nomination and election. If you withdraw from election - then candidate become un-opposed. If you die - before it - then we have new nomination. In any case why are we even worried about this - Let NASA do their thing - and we shall see. Just refuse to participate.

Pundit, methinks the situation where there are no available/willing candidates to be president except one is not the same as where someone(s) withdraws just before the election at the tail end of a very long process. Methinks the first envisages a situation where no one wants/is qualified to be president except one and that this situation is all very clear to the electorate as/before it happens.

[Kadame7]

Kibe was giving them a way to pretend to ignore that interpretation by pretending it was non-binding,  Maybe that's where the hope comes from.

But in the end he too agreed there was simply no way out unless the SCOK vacated that. However the order was made 21 days ago and it is already overtaken by events. There is only one other way but I don't see how it could work. I will reveal next week

Kibe blames the IEBC instead of Githu.

Yeah, my hunch is that he admitted that only because Chebukati has already indicated he is obeying it. Kibe can't tell him in broad daylight to ignore it without finding a basis to unilaterally set aside a SCOK finding which is non-existent. It makes no sense why he would go round and round trying to say that the SCOK interpretation was non-binding except to tell "someone" somewhere not to follow it. I think IEBC pre-empted him. He probably wishes Chebu had consulted him quietly first.

[RV Pundit]

What for - and the two have been nominated. If Raila want to withdraw his candidature - do it.

When will the nomination for this planned election take place bro?

[Kadame7]

What for - and the two have been nominated. If Raila want to withdraw his candidature - do it.

When will the nomination for this planned election take place bro?

Pundit, read the 2013 interpretation that Chebukati recently gave as his basis for how he is conducting this election. It will inform you on what Omollo is telling you.

[Omollo]

So Aukot, Jirongo, Wainaina, Dida can also run... they were also nominated... right?

What for - and the two have been nominated. If Raila want to withdraw his candidature - do it.

When will the nomination for this planned election take place bro?

[RV Pundit]

They already conceded - a repeat election ordered btw two nominated - one has dropped out - so we just have one left - IEBC can proceed to conduct a mock election if they want or simply declare the duly nominated Uhuru duly elected.

So Aukot, Jirongo, Wainaina, Dida can also run... they were also nominated... right?

[Kadame7]

They already conceded - a repeat election ordered btw two nominated - one has dropped out - so we just have one left - IEBC can proceed to conduct a mock election if they want or simply declare the duly nominated Uhuru duly elected.

So Aukot, Jirongo, Wainaina, Dida can also run... they were also nominated... right?

So is this yours or the SCOK understanding? Please read it. It's a page/two: very short.

[RV Pundit]

I read it. It stupid decision that seem to say - we go for fresh nomination - and hold new election. Nothing really changes. Uhuru continues. IEBC simply add 2-3 months.

So is this yours or the SCOK understanding? Please read it. It's a page/two: very short.

[Omollo]

So what do you think of the opinion by the Supreme Court (2013) that if one candidate of the two pulls out the process end and we start afresh? Do we still act as if the SCOK made no finding?

They already conceded - a repeat election ordered btw two nominated - one has dropped out - so we just have one left - IEBC can proceed to conduct a mock election if they want or simply declare the duly nominated Uhuru duly elected.

So Aukot, Jirongo, Wainaina, Dida can also run... they were also nominated... right?

[Kadame7]

I read it. It stupid decision that seem to say - we go for fresh nomination - and hold new election. Nothing really changes. Uhuru continues. IEBC simply add 2-3 months.

So is this yours or the SCOK understanding? Please read it. It's a page/two: very short.

If you read it, why do you keep insisting that Uhuru will be elected unopposed? Are you saying that SCOK interpretation will not be followed about starting new elections if candidates pull out?

[RV Pundit]

Granted. IEBC  - simply invites nomination - and set a new election date - just add a week for nomination and 45 days for campaigning. Raila refuses and Uhuru compete with whoever want to compete with Jubilee joggernaut. First let Raila withdraw and then we can go back to SCOK to clarify this.

So what do you think of the opinion by the Supreme Court (2013) that if one candidate of the two pulls out the process end and we start afresh? Do we still act as if the SCOK made no finding?

[Omollo]

Kadame

Pundit says he read it! I believe him!

I read it. It stupid decision that seem to say - we go for fresh nomination - and hold new election. Nothing really changes. Uhuru continues. IEBC simply add 2-3 months.

[289] It is clear that a fresh election under Article 140(3) is triggered by the invalidation of the election of the declared President-elect, by the Supreme Court, following a successful petition against such election. Since such a fresh election is built on the foundations of the invalidated election, it can, in our opinion, only involve candidates who participated in the original election. In that case, there will be no basis for a fresh nomination of candidates for the resultant electoral contest.

[Omollo]

Res judicata

Granted. IEBC  - simply invites nomination - and set a new election date - just add a week for nomination and 45 days for campaigning. Raila refuses and Uhuru compete with whoever want to compete with Jubilee joggernaut. First let Raila withdraw and then we can go back to SCOK to clarify this.

[vooke]

[Omollo]

What would Jubilee be praying for? Is there an issue that is unclear which Jubilee would want the SCOK to clarify? I see a clearly stated opinion:

[290] Suppose, however, that the candidates, or a candidate who took part in the original election, dies or abandons the electoral quest before the scheduled date: then the provisions of Article 138(1) (b) would become applicable, with fresh nominations ensuing.

Let me define for you;

Res judicata (RJ) or res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", and refers to either of two concepts: in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued litigation of a case on same issues between the same parties. In this latter usage, the term is synonymous with "preclusion".

In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter.

The doctrine of res judicata is a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps also or mostly a way of avoiding unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments, and confusion.

[vooke]

What would Jubilee be praying for? Is there an issue that is unclear which Jubilee would want the SCOK to clarify? I see a clearly stated opinion:

[290] Suppose, however, that the candidates, or a candidate who took part in the original election, dies or abandons the electoral quest before the scheduled date: then the provisions of Article 138(1) (b) would become applicable, with fresh nominations ensuing.

Let me define for you;

Res judicata (RJ) or res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", and refers to either of two concepts: in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued litigation of a case on same issues between the same parties. In this latter usage, the term is synonymous with "preclusion".

In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter.

The doctrine of res judicata is a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps also or mostly a way of avoiding unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments, and confusion.

Who said these words?

Was the matter of spoilt ballots not settled before this very court NASWA introduced it?

[Omollo]

1. Source: Raila vs IEBC (see the link I provided you earlier)
2. The matter cannot alone be brought before the court. It would be dispensed with in the preliminaries.
3. That aside the court lacks Retroactive powers. It can not outlaw something and penalize someone who followed the earlier instructions

Iwinjo?

Was the matter of spoilt ballots not settled before this very court NASWA introduced it?

[vooke]

1. Source: Raila vs IEBC (see the link I provided you earlier)
2. The matter cannot alone be brought before the court. It would be dispensed with in the preliminaries.
3. That aside the court lacks Retroactive powers. It can not outlaw something and penalize someone who followed the earlier instructions

Iwinjo?

Was the matter of spoilt ballots not settled before this very court NASWA introduced it?