Chebukati Goes to Court

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I don't have his pleadings.  Do you?  Share them if you do.

While ballot boxes are important, their presence at NTC is unnecessary when you have the 34As. 

Without a 34A, the ballots might as well be good for wiping kamwana's itchy ass.  There is nothing telling you that they are the same thing, no signatures, no record.  You can be shown millions of currency bills, but if it's not recorded on your bank statement, that is not going to help you much.

[RV Pundit]

Vooke tough luck arguing with people who are seeing ghosts everywhere. What exactly is to verify? Does having all 34As verify anything? Or you need to examine the contents of the form? And what happen if they are discrepancies? What should the chairman do?

The guy cannot alter or vary or correct shiet.

Maybe he can issue a SCOK like SCRUTINY report - of CAVEATS. before declaring the winner?
1) 100 form 34As were not signed
2) 20 form 34Bs were not stamped?
100) - list of "verification" errors.

And finally say my hands are tied because the results declared by POs and ROs are final and so with heavy heart I hereby declare Uhuru Kenyatta elected with errors, discrepancies and illegalities.

Or well maybe he can be given powers to annul the election

My view - Chebukati should be allowed to verify or not. If he cannot verify- he should simply tally final form 34B - he doesn't need to see shiet he has no powers to do anything about them. The court should verify in case of petition that maths were correct, all forms correct and the impact of any errors.

If he is allowed to verify - he should be alowed to alter or correct results - and make that clear  & in public view of agents & observers.

[vooke]

I don't have his pleadings.  Do you?  Share them if you do.

While ballot boxes are important, their presence at NTC is unnecessary when you have the 34As. 

Without a 34A, the ballots might as well be good for wiping kamwana's itchy ass.  There is nothing telling you that they are the same thing, no signatures, no record.  You can be shown millions of currency bills, but if it's not recorded on your bank statement, that is not going to help you much.

[vooke]

That is precisely why this crooked judgement cannot pass common sense test! I am glad Chebukati is going back to them again? Say what niggas? I don't know what they will tell him - go back and get a law degree coz you can't understand our genius rulling?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

They specified the type of verification the person(chairman as opposed to IEBC) can do at NTC.  They did not forbid it.  We have to make the distinction between what is expected of Chebukati(the bad hombre) and IEBC(the institution).  Chebukati is at the top of the institution that as a whole is responsible for ensuring that there are enough 34As to support the outcome.

We covered this for many pages on another thread in greater detail.  The election was annulled, because IEBC(as a whole, not Chebukati) did not have(or was unable for some reason to share) the 34As on the material day to support the outcome that was declared.  That is why I think the ruling even cuts the guy himself some slack.

I agree there is some confusion.  Just not about why 34As must be in place.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I don't have his pleadings.  Do you?  Share them if you do.

While ballot boxes are important, their presence at NTC is unnecessary when you have the 34As. 

Without a 34A, the ballots might as well be good for wiping kamwana's itchy ass.  There is nothing telling you that they are the same thing, no signatures, no record.  You can be shown millions of currency bills, but if it's not recorded on your bank statement, that is not going to help you much.

I think you are missing the point of 34As.  They are the legal tender for what is in the ballot box.  They are not an optional indulgence.  They stand in for the ballot box.  You trust them, unless they are shown to be fake(in which case the record of what happened that day is lost).

[RV Pundit]

Vooke,
The SCOK judgement is totally crazy. It can ony be due to really compromised bench. I am glad Chebukati is going back. They clear need to tell us what they want.

[vooke]

We covered this for many pages on another thread in greater detail.  The election was annulled, because IEBC(as a whole, not Chebukati) did not have(or was unable for some reason to share) the 34As on the material day to support the outcome that was declared.  That is why I think the ruling even cuts the guy himself some slack.

I agree there is some confusion.  Just not about why 34As must be in place.

No sir,
Please study this part carefully


the 2nd respondent(Chairperson) declared the final results for the election of the President on 11th August, 2017, not all results as tabulated in Forms 34A, had been electronically and simultaneously transmitted from the polling stations, to the National Tallying Centres. The 2nd respondent cannot therefore be said to have verified the results before declaring them.

[290] The said verification could only have been possible if, before declaring the results, the 2nd respondent had checked the aggregated tallies in Forms 34B against the scanned Forms 34A as transmitted in accordance with Section 39 (1C) of the Elections Act. Given the fact that all Forms 34 B were generated from the aggregates of Forms 34A, there can be no logical explanation as to why, in tallying the Forms 34B into the Form 34C, this primary document (Form 34A), was completely disregarded.

[vooke]

Vooke,
The SCOK judgement is totally crazy. It can ony be due to really compromised bench. I am glad Chebukati is going back. They clear need to tell us what they want.

[259] We were at pains to understand how the Court of Appeal decision in that case, could have provided a judicial justification for the conduct of the 1st and 2nd respondents.....

[261] We have read the extensively reasoned and powerfully rendered decision by the Court of Appeal in Maina Kiai.

I can tell you for free SCOK NEVER read the decision. The highlighted is a fat lie

[Kichwa]

BS. That the Kiai case tied Chebukati's hands is a broken record.  He cannot change the numbers on 34a  but he 1) he can verify if they add up to what's on 35B.  2) he can reject them if they are not signed or submitted on the legal format and the only way for him to do that is to know that they exist in the first place. etc.  One of the most important work of the Chairman among many others is to maintain a record that that can be reviewed and used for verification purposes.  These are basic requirements of his job and he does not need the court to tell him.

Vooke tough luck arguing with people who are seeing ghosts everywhere. What exactly is to verify? Does having all 34As verify anything? Or you need to examine the contents of the form? And what happen if they are discrepancies? What should the chairman do?

The guy cannot alter or vary or correct shiet.

Maybe he can issue a SCOK like SCRUTINY report - of CAVEATS. before declaring the winner?
1) 100 form 34As were not signed
2) 20 form 34Bs were not stamped?
100) - list of "verification" errors.

And finally say my hands are tied because the results declared by POs and ROs are final and so with heavy heart I hereby declare Uhuru Kenyatta elected with errors, discrepancies and illegalities.

Or well maybe he can be given powers to annul the election

My view - Chebukati should be allowed to verify or not. If he cannot verify- he should simply tally final form 34B - he doesn't need to see shiet he has no powers to do anything about them. The court should verify in case of petition that maths were correct, all forms correct and the impact of any errors.

If he is allowed to verify - he should be alowed to alter or correct results - and make that clear  & in public view of agents & observers.

[vooke]

BS. That the Kiai case tied Chebukati's hands is a broken record.  He cannot change the numbers on 34a  but he 1) he can verify if they add up to what's on 35B.  2) he can reject them if they are not signed or submitted on the legal format etc.  One of the most important work of the Chairman among many others is to maintain a record that that can be reviewed and used for verification purposes.  These are basic requirements of his job and he does not need the court to tell him.

WITHOUT altering and varying

Moving on to the second ground, the appellant
(IEBC) submitted that Article 138 (3) (c) requires it to verify the count before declaring the result of the presidential election and for that purpose its chairperson is required to tally and verify the count from all polling stations before declaring the result. and not to alter and/or vary results as was interpreted by the High Court.

But the court of appeal ruled;

It is, in our view fallacious and flies in the face of the clear principles and values of the Constitution to claim that the chairperson of the appellant can alone, at the national tallying centre or wherever, purport to confirm, vary or verify the results arrived at through an open, transparent and participatory process as we have already set out.


To suggest that there is some law that empowers the chairperson of the appellant, as an individual to alone correct, vary, confirm, alter, modify or adjust the results electronically transmitted to the national tallying centre from the constituency tallying centres, is to donate an illegitimate power. Such a suggestion would introduce opaqueness and arbitrariness to the electoral process - the very mischief the Constitution seeks to remedy.

[vooke]

Just wondering how SCOK can contradict/reverse themselves on this matter which seems to be the biggest ground for invalidation.


And something else, was SCOK conflating NTC/Chairperson with IEBC?

[bryan275]

BS. That the Kiai case tied Chebukati's hands is a broken record.  He cannot change the numbers on 34a  but he 1) he can verify if they add up to what's on 35B.  2) he can reject them if they are not signed or submitted on the legal format etc.  One of the most important work of the Chairman among many others is to maintain a record that that can be reviewed and used for verification purposes.  These are basic requirements of his job and he does not need the court to tell him.

WITHOUT altering and varying

Moving on to the second ground, the appellant
(IEBC) submitted that Article 138 (3) (c) requires it to verify the count before declaring the result of the presidential election and for that purpose its chairperson is required to tally and verify the count from all polling stations before declaring the result. and not to alter and/or vary results as was interpreted by the High Court.

But the court of appeal ruled;

It is, in our view fallacious and flies in the face of the clear principles and values of the Constitution to claim that the chairperson of the appellant can alone, at the national tallying centre or wherever, purport to confirm, vary or verify the results arrived at through an open, transparent and participatory process as we have already set out.


To suggest that there is some law that empowers the chairperson of the appellant, as an individual to alone correct, vary, confirm, alter, modify or adjust the results electronically transmitted to the national tallying centre from the constituency tallying centres, is to donate an illegitimate power. Such a suggestion would introduce opaqueness and arbitrariness to the electoral process - the very mischief the Constitution seeks to remedy.

Correct this lay man if you can... I thought the very basic meaning of verify/verification is to check the validity of something?  There is no way verification also includes adjustment.  In my view if Chebukati is presented with a stack of dodgy 34Bs, dodgy as in lacking the proper serial numbers, security features and even his own Returning/Presiding officers' signature, then the next logical step is to reject said 34Bs as they will have failed verification on the face of it.  If he further checks the figures on them and ascertains that they do not match the transmitted results from the polling centre......the outcome is still reject reject reject.  What's so difficult to understand here?

 

"verify
?v?r?f??/
verb
verb: verify; 3rd person present: verifies; past tense: verified; past participle: verified; gerund or present participle: verifying

    make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified.
    "his conclusions have been verified by later experiments"
    synonyms:   substantiate, confirm, prove, show to be true, corroborate, back up, support, uphold, evidence, establish, demonstrate, demonstrate the truth of, show, show beyond doubt, attest to, testify to, validate, authenticate, endorse, certify, accredit, ratify, warrant, vouch for, bear out, bear witness to, give credence to, give force to, give/lend weight to, justify, vindicate; More
    make sure, make certain, check;
    informalpin down;
    informalsuss out
    "reports of the massacre could not be verified"
    antonyms:   refute
        Law
        swear to or support (a statement) by affidavit."


"verification
?v?r?f??ke??(?)n/
noun
noun: verification; plural noun: verifications

    the process of establishing the truth, accuracy, or validity of something.
    "the verification of official documents"
    synonyms:   confirmation, substantiation, corroboration, attestation, affirmation, validation, authentication, endorsement, accreditation, ratification, establishment, certification; More
    evidence, proof, support, witness, testament, documentation
    "the banking software has an array of functions including signature verification"
        Philosophy
        the establishment by empirical means of the validity of a proposition.
        "the verification principle"
        the process of ensuring that procedures laid down in weapons limitation agreements are followed."

 

[Kichwa]

You seem to be more confused after reading it.

BS. That the Kiai case tied Chebukati's hands is a broken record.  He cannot change the numbers on 34a  but he 1) he can verify if they add up to what's on 35B.  2) he can reject them if they are not signed or submitted on the legal format etc.  One of the most important work of the Chairman among many others is to maintain a record that that can be reviewed and used for verification purposes.  These are basic requirements of his job and he does not need the court to tell him.

WITHOUT altering and varying

Moving on to the second ground, the appellant
(IEBC) submitted that Article 138 (3) (c) requires it to verify the count before declaring the result of the presidential election and for that purpose its chairperson is required to tally and verify the count from all polling stations before declaring the result. and not to alter and/or vary results as was interpreted by the High Court.

But the court of appeal ruled;

It is, in our view fallacious and flies in the face of the clear principles and values of the Constitution to claim that the chairperson of the appellant can alone, at the national tallying centre or wherever, purport to confirm, vary or verify the results arrived at through an open, transparent and participatory process as we have already set out.


To suggest that there is some law that empowers the chairperson of the appellant, as an individual to alone correct, vary, confirm, alter, modify or adjust the results electronically transmitted to the national tallying centre from the constituency tallying centres, is to donate an illegitimate power. Such a suggestion would introduce opaqueness and arbitrariness to the electoral process - the very mischief the Constitution seeks to remedy.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

It's good that Chebukati is in court to seek clarification on his role on 34As and 34Bs.  It's important also to keep in mind that when he declared the outcome, 182 34Bs were not available to interested parties.  IEBC was able to provide only 108 34Bs on the material day.  What this means is, even if he only had to rely on 34Bs, there is no evidence that he had enough of them to make a valid declaration.

This information can be found in the ruling.

[vooke]

Correct this lay man if you can... I thought the very basic meaning of verify/verification is to check the validity of something?  There is no way verification also includes adjustment.  In my view if Chebukati is presented with a stack of dodgy 34Bs, dodgy as in lacking the proper serial numbers, security features and even his own Returning/Presiding officers' signature, then the next logical step is to reject said 34Bs as they will have failed verification on the face of it.  If he further checks the figures on them and ascertains that they do not match the transmitted results from the polling centre......the outcome is still reject reject reject.  What's so difficult to understand here?

 

"verify
?v?r?f??/
verb
verb: verify; 3rd person present: verifies; past tense: verified; past participle: verified; gerund or present participle: verifying

    make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified.
    "his conclusions have been verified by later experiments"
    synonyms:   substantiate, confirm, prove, show to be true, corroborate, back up, support, uphold, evidence, establish, demonstrate, demonstrate the truth of, show, show beyond doubt, attest to, testify to, validate, authenticate, endorse, certify, accredit, ratify, warrant, vouch for, bear out, bear witness to, give credence to, give force to, give/lend weight to, justify, vindicate; More
    make sure, make certain, check;
    informalpin down;
    informalsuss out
    "reports of the massacre could not be verified"
    antonyms:   refute
        Law
        swear to or support (a statement) by affidavit."


"verification
?v?r?f??ke??(?)n/
noun
noun: verification; plural noun: verifications

    the process of establishing the truth, accuracy, or validity of something.
    "the verification of official documents"
    synonyms:   confirmation, substantiation, corroboration, attestation, affirmation, validation, authentication, endorsement, accreditation, ratification, establishment, certification; More
    evidence, proof, support, witness, testament, documentation
    "the banking software has an array of functions including signature verification"
        Philosophy
        the establishment by empirical means of the validity of a proposition.
        "the verification principle"
        the process of ensuring that procedures laid down in weapons limitation agreements are followed."

 

Moving on to the second ground, the appellant
(IEBC) submitted that Article 138 (3) (c) requires it to verify the count before declaring the result of the presidential election and for that purpose its chairperson is required to tally and verify the count from all polling stations before declaring the result. In its view,

[vooke]

You seem to be more confused after reading it.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

You seem to be more confused after reading it.

Specifically the only verification allowed was for threshold(51%/25% per county).  I am not sure what you gain by downplaying this fact about the Kiai case.  In any case, when you don't have more than half the 34Bs, even that kind of verification is impossible.  SCOK material finding was correct. 

[vooke]

You seem to be more confused after reading it.

Specifically the only verification allowed was for threshold(51%/25% per county).  I am not sure what you gain by downplaying this fact about the Kiai case.  In any case, when you don't have more than half the 34Bs, even that kind of verification is impossible.  SCOK material finding was correct. 

You are willfully  ignorant of the fact that IEBC convincingly  refuted this charge but admitted to not possessing over 10K forms 34A. Explains why according to SCOK,the biggest non-compliance was not declaration without  34Bs but 34As.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

You seem to be more confused after reading it.

Specifically the only verification allowed was for threshold(51%/25% per county).  I am not sure what you gain by downplaying this fact about the Kiai case.  In any case, when you don't have more than half the 34Bs, even that kind of verification is impossible.  SCOK material finding was correct. 

You are ignorant of the fact that IEBC convincingly  refuted this charge but admitted to not possessing over 10K forms 34A. Explains why according to SCOK,the biggest non-compliance was not declaration without  34Bs but 34As.

Guilty as charged.  Maybe you have the evidence.  The ruling states that this fact was not denied.