Supreme Court of Kenya Presidential Petition Full Judgement

[RV Pundit]

When is Raila abandoing her quest...let him do it today so we can have the so called fresh nomination and get done with this.

Wake me up when the election is over and Uhuru is sworn in

[Omollo]

This is nonsense. There is a reason judges do not conduct autopsies or conduct searches. We have a different system from Italy, Spain etc where Judges are also investigators.

Will she vacate her bench seat take the witness stand cross examine herself before returning to the bench to rule. That hinges on misconduct. She could have ordered another examination. This smells like the NIS out to cause mischief.

The issues then becomes did IEBC present different set of papers? Was there moles in IEBC who planted fake forms? If you read the scrutiny report - NASA seem to know which forms to look for? In short this call for public inquiry where all the parties involved get to testify. I'd expect parliament and Uhuru to do that - if Judiciary don't do this. Njoki should present his forms...and Nyakai her forms...and IEBC should explain why there is such discrepancies?

I will look at her written judgment when Mucheru allows the judiciary website back online.

The registrar cannot be lying when Uhuru people were present and did not DISPUTE her findings and went ahead to sign. Their recorded objections are noted (both Raila and Uhuru) while other cases were not disputed. So where did Njoki obtain forms that previously missed serial numbers? Do bar codes grow back on forms? Do photo copies suddenly become original after a week of "growth"

[Omollo]

Does he owe you a favor?

When is Raila abandoing her quest...let him do it today so we can have the so called fresh nomination and get done with this.

Wake me up when the election is over and Uhuru is sworn in

[vooke]

When is Raila abandoing her quest...let him do it today so we can have the so called fresh nomination and get done with this.

Wake me up when the election is over and Uhuru is sworn in

This shity idea I'm dead sure Babu has not bought it.

If he has, the strategy is to pull out very late when there's no time for IEBC or anybody else to seek an advisory opinion on the same at SCOK.

But I doubt the words of an Amica are binding though they form part of the 2013 judgement. My own layman thoughts.

[GeeMail]

I will scrutinize for academic purposes.

vooke do you think the judge hearing the Musando Inquest (whenever it is called) should conduct her own autopsy? Njoki could have ordered another exercise. BTW I have a lot of doubts that she had the time and capacity to do that in the limited time available.

Use your usually sharp mind to see through this.

Njoki's claims are easy to disprove. She named specific forms. All you need is scrutinize them again...originals that is, and contrast your findings with hers and the scrutiny report.

Why does this hurt many here?
Shouldn't they be interested in the veracity of her statement?

That is what is even more baffling. She somehow chose to scrutinize forms on her own when even Moses Kulia opted for counting of fake ballots in Kasarani. Then she uses that as a basis for a SCOK judgement? Where did she find the time to scrutinize forms and write her judgement?

[Omollo]

There is the little question of who becomes president after that period is expired. Temporary incumbency is not provided for beyond the 60 days. Or do you want me to spend another ten days explaining.

BTW I am glad you finally understood that if Raila pulls out Uhuru must face fresh nominations. Of course he can support Aukot's application but that would mean 60 days from the day of judgment... which would exceed the original sixty days... what a mess... by Consigliere Githu Muigai

[vooke]

Something about SCOK.
I have always wondered why Uhuruto went around advertising and using CS yet it is clearly illegal.

Kumbe the matter is before High Court and Maraga can't do nothing?

That is smart

But trust NASWA legal brains to play dumb and shove it anyway.

[Omollo]

We are still there.

The Consigliere invited the court. The court took the bait and gave the binding opinion. They are not words. It is the SCOK opinion.

shall we call this response number 5 to the same question?

This shity idea I'm dead sure Babu has not bought it.

If he has, the strategy is to pull out very late when there's no time for IEBC or anybody else to seek an advisory opinion on the same at SCOK.

But I doubt the words of an Amica are binding though they form part of the 2013 judgement. My own layman thoughts.

[vooke]

There is the little question of who becomes president after that period is expired. Temporary incumbency is not provided for beyond the 60 days. Or do you want me to spend another ten days explaining.

BTW I am glad you finally understood that if Raila pulls out Uhuru must face fresh nominations. Of course he can support Aukot's application but that would mean 60 days from the day of judgment... which would exceed the original sixty days... what a mess... by Consigliere Githu Muigai

Temporary Incumbency has no fixed timelines, started on nane nane and lasts till somebody is sworn in.

[vooke]

We are still there.

The Consigliere invited the court. The court took the bait and gave the binding opinion. They are not words. It is the SCOK opinion.

shall we call this response number 5 to the same question?

This shity idea I'm dead sure Babu has not bought it.

If he has, the strategy is to pull out very late when there's no time for IEBC or anybody else to seek an advisory opinion on the same at SCOK.

But I doubt the words of an Amica are binding though they form part of the 2013 judgement. My own layman thoughts.

Negro be easy,
I'm no lawyer

Ok it's binding. I still have my doubts

And you never answered on Aukot's case. If the previous opinion was set aside would Aukot be on the ballot next month, or would it be applicable to FUTURE elections?

[Omollo]

I note that Pundit says she has a right to scrutinize the forms. I think as a judge that is not straightforward. For starters she is not an expert. Even if she were such an expert, her findings like all expert opinion must be subject to interrogation and cross examination. The parties must have a chance to be heard. If she carried out an examination, it is unilateral and no party got a chance to interrogate it.

Now will she be a witness? If she had brought up the matter in plenary, would she testify to it?

This is highly irregular and it amounts to a judge deviating seriously from the established civil procedure. It is misconduct. But I will await her written crap.

That is what is even more baffling. She somehow chose to scrutinize forms on her own when even Moses Kulia opted for counting of fake ballots in Kasarani. Then she uses that as a basis for a SCOK judgement? Where did she find the time to scrutinize forms and write her judgement?

[Omollo]

That about Aukot is one big mess! The SCOK would have to make a determination on who got how many votes. That is yet another minefield. My take is that they will seize on his concession speech and the fact that he did not petition.

[291]

Negro be easy,
I'm no lawyer

Ok it's binding. I still have my doubts

And you never answered on Aukot's case. If the previous opinion was set aside would Aukot be on the ballot next month, or would it be applicable to FUTURE elections?

[vooke]

 

[RV Pundit]

You're truly nuts. This is actually the real job of a judge in a petition. They open ballots and scrutinize them. They check papers. That is job 101 of judge in a petition. The SCOK registar is not an expert. There are no expertise required to check if a form is indeed signed, stamped, has serial number and such. You may need special devices for bar codes and infra-reds but that wasn't necessary. The Wakora 4 obviously relied on the SCOK registar - and now with Njoki revelations - there is need to do an inquiry to establish where the difference came from? Did IEBC moles plant fakes forms?  That I believe is what Ngatia was alluding to when he talked of "other processes". Uhuru need to file for review of this case...in light of these evidences and the affidavit that shows improper contact btw some judges and the NASA lawyers.

I note that Pundit says she has a right to scrutinize the forms. I think as a judge that is not straightforward. For starters she is not an expert. Even if she were such an expert, her findings like all expert opinion must be subject to interrogation and cross examination. The parties must have a chance to be heard. If she carried out an examination, it is unilateral and no party got a chance to interrogate it.

Now will she be a witness? If she had brought up the matter in plenary, would she testify to it?

This is highly irregular and it amounts to a judge deviating seriously from the established civil procedure. It is misconduct. But I will await her written crap.

[Kadame7]

Yeah it sure hurts the likes of Kadame or Omollo - coz they know Njoki methodologically deconstructed the main evidence used by the majority. She has my respect now. Lenaola has disappointed but Njoki has suprised with her thoroughness.

Njoki's claims are easy to disprove. She named specific forms. All you need is scrutinize them again...originals that is, and contrast your findings with hers and the scrutiny report.
Why does this hurt many here?
Shouldn't they be interested in the veracity of her statement?

Ati hurts me? Lol. It's a good way to put that after jumping on the single most stupid thing that was said in that court yesterday without thinking. In fact I gave her the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were putting words in her mouth for there is no way she actually said that. 

[Kadame7]

When is Raila abandoing her quest...let him do it today so we can have the so called fresh nomination and get done with this.

Wake me up when the election is over and Uhuru is sworn in

This shity idea I'm dead sure Babu has not bought it.

If he has, the strategy is to pull out very late when there's no time for IEBC or anybody else to seek an advisory opinion on the same at SCOK.

But I doubt the words of an Amica are binding though they form part of the 2013 judgment. My own layman thoughts.

Dude, they were the words of the SCOK: the amicus was simply the original source of the daft idea. And if you read the majority judgment, this court is not about to depart from its own previous decisions easily. In fact, yesterday I had the impression that they departed from the burden/stds of proof established in 2013, but actually, they refused to do so. Petitioners wanted them to but they maintained the same. I haven't seen anything that was challenged about SCOK previous decisions that the court agreed to change yesterday.

[RV Pundit]

All I read from you is the lols: engage your brain for a change.

lol lol bla de bla lol :lol

[Kadame7]

I will scrutinize for academic purposes.

vooke do you think the judge hearing the Musando Inquest (whenever it is called) should conduct her own autopsy? Njoki could have ordered another exercise. BTW I have a lot of doubts that she had the time and capacity to do that in the limited time available.

Use your usually sharp mind to see through this.

Njoki's claims are easy to disprove. She named specific forms. All you need is scrutinize them again...originals that is, and contrast your findings with hers and the scrutiny report.

Why does this hurt many here?
Shouldn't they be interested in the veracity of her statement?

That is what is even more baffling. She somehow chose to scrutinize forms on her own when even Moses Kulia opted for counting of fake ballots in Kasarani. Then she uses that as a basis for a SCOK judgement? Where did she find the time to scrutinize forms and write her judgement?

I used to think Njoki was biased but not dumb. The claim that she said this started giving me real doubts about the latter.

[Kichwa]

Omollo is 100% correct on this one.  That statement destroyed her credibility completely. She will regret making it. It clearly showed she was lying or somebody wrote the opinion and she did not notice it's impact before she read it.  She cannot conduct her own investigations perform a test on her own outside the court room and include it in her decision without giving the other judges and the parties an opportunity to interrogate her findings. At this rate she might as well just want yolo and make the outrageous claim that she counted the votes herself  and found that Ouru won.

You're truly nuts. This is actually the real job of a judge in a petition. They open ballots and scrutinize them. They check papers. That is job 101 of judge in a petition. The SCOK registar is not an expert. There are no expertise required to check if a form is indeed signed, stamped, has serial number and such. You may need special devices for bar codes and infra-reds but that wasn't necessary. The Wakora 4 obviously relied on the SCOK registar - and now with Njoki revelations - there is need to do an inquiry to establish where the difference came from? Did IEBC moles plant fakes forms?  That I believe is what Ngatia was alluding to when he talked of "other processes". Uhuru need to file for review of this case...in light of these evidences and the affidavit that shows improper contact btw some judges and the NASA lawyers.

I note that Pundit says she has a right to scrutinize the forms. I think as a judge that is not straightforward. For starters she is not an expert. Even if she were such an expert, her findings like all expert opinion must be subject to interrogation and cross examination. The parties must have a chance to be heard. If she carried out an examination, it is unilateral and no party got a chance to interrogate it.

Now will she be a witness? If she had brought up the matter in plenary, would she testify to it?

This is highly irregular and it amounts to a judge deviating seriously from the established civil procedure. It is misconduct. But I will await her written crap.

[vooke]

When is Raila abandoing her quest...let him do it today so we can have the so called fresh nomination and get done with this.

Wake me up when the election is over and Uhuru is sworn in

This shity idea I'm dead sure Babu has not bought it.

If he has, the strategy is to pull out very late when there's no time for IEBC or anybody else to seek an advisory opinion on the same at SCOK.

But I doubt the words of an Amica are binding though they form part of the 2013 judgment. My own layman thoughts.

Dude, they were the words of the SCOK: the amicus was simply the original source of the daft idea. And if you read the majority judgment, this court is not about to depart from its own previous decisions easily. In fact, yesterday I had the impression that they departed from the burden/stds of proof established in 2013, but actually, they refused to do so. Petitioners wanted them to but they maintained the same. I haven't seen anything that was challenged about SCOK previous decisions that the court agreed to change yesterday.

If there's such a risk of paralysis, you can bet Jubilee is on it. That they are daring Babu to withdraw tells me they are cocksure