Supreme Court judges. [Photo/The Star]
The long-awaited comprehensive judgment on the nullification of the August 8 presidential results began early on Wednesday morning with a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice David Maraga.
From the precincts of the Supreme Court, the judges stated at least five reasons that pushed them to declare the results null and void.According to the judgment read by Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, first, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) flouted the Constitution and became a law themselves.Mwilu also said according to the IEBC handbook which states that elections are not just an event but a process is a factor that was not taken into account by the commissioners.
The judges also said another factor leading to their judgment was the fact that IEBC failed to utilise technology in the electoral process which Kriegler had recommended after the 2007 disputed polls. The technology to be used should be transparent and verifiable.
Another factor that kept IEBC on the wrong was the fact that after announcing results the commission could not provide all Forms 34A arguing that presidential results were determined by Forms 34Bs.
Finally, Mwilu said IEBC was required to provide certificates of penetration tests on the transmission systems and also provide GPS location of KIEMS kits which was not done.
On his part, Chief Justice David Maraga said the results were nullified because IEBC failed to act on a violation of the law on misuse of public resources by President Uhuru Kenyatta.
"Raila Odinga claimed in his petition that Uhuru threatened chiefs in Makueni for failing to campaign for him. Interior PS said that the said chiefs in Makueni were using Government issued motorcycle for political activities. What is an undue influence in the view of above
allegations?" he said.
The issue of missing watermarks features of 56 forms out of the 291 was also noted by Maraga as the reason why the presidential results were upheld.
"Out of 291 forms, 56 had no watermarks features while 31 did not bear serial numbers and a further 5 were not signed at all and 2 were only stamped by returning officers but not signed, in addition, a further 32 forms were not signed by agents. The above indices put accountability of forms in question," he added.