This is a futile debate.
The court was faced with:
1. Election materials including form 34
2. Computer / Electornic "material" following its own ruling to an interlocutary application
The court (including Ojwang and Njoki) agreed on the basis of analysis with all parties canvassing the matter before a ruling was made:
Raila (his agents)
Uhuru (His agents)
IEBC (Its agents)
Chebukati (his agents)
Would examine the forms and the computers
The registrar (with full powers as a jugde empowered to make rulings) would supervise
ALL parties agreed on an MO
Their objectiions and observations would be recorded
Parties NOT allowed to present further submissions on the matter ( something harshly implemented against Orengo and Ngatia later)
The report was presented SIGNED by all the parties with their observations.
What I need to hear is that Uhuru's agents (so far the IEBC has not made any accusations) signed the report knowing it to be false!
On whether the IEBC forms were substituted with fakes: How come the agents did not raise that point? It would have been simple to say "we cannot proceed, these are not the forms we presented!
Note that the IEBC handed forms to the petitioners and the respondents as well as interested parties! Only one party is making silly claims! That means the IEBC hadned fake forms to all the others but gave Uhuru and Ndungu clean forms! Give me a break!
Back to the proceedure:
The rules of evidence confine the judges to the registrars report compiled by the parties. The areas and issues that are contentious would ordinarily be canvassed in court and perhaps experts brought in to elucidate. In matters of forhery which is contested especially handwriting (which was not pursued) two experts are required - a handwriting expert and a forgery expert. Only those two can testify on the authenticity of a handwriting or forgery thereof.
A judge may be a forensic scientist but cannot employ his or her knowledge to testify on exhibits! He can order an examination or re-examination but has avenue for offering own opinion. He can ask questions and frame them based on his expertise the answers of which would elucidate the issue he found.
The reason is simple; to prevent the mixing of roles where a judge becomes a witness.
Njoki is guilty of gross misconduct. Her purported examination of the forms is problematic:
1, Her findings are not subject to interrogation, verification, confirmation, testing by the parties and she cannot avoid accusations of bias.
2. It violates the procedure and rulings earlier made by the full court where they were all to depend on the joint report
This is a transparent attempt to undermine the SCOK. In the end it is Njoki who will pay a heavy price. The Registrar has enough evidence to dispel the smear on her reputation. Njoki would then have to show how she got the clean papers!
Topic: Iebc have corrected "mistakes" cited at supreme court hearing (Read 2503 times)