Nasa leader Raila Odinga addressing the media at Okoa Kenya offices, Nairobi on October 10, 2017. Nasa announced their withdrawal from the October 26 repeat presidential election. [PHOTO/nation.co.ke]

Share news tips with us here at Hivisasa

NASA leader Raila Odinga was the master of his own fate away from clinching presidency of the country.

This is according to the Supreme Court.

The court said that withdrawal of Raila from the repeat election of October 26 was the biggest tactical blunder which eventually saw him lose any say towards leading the counntry.

In its judgement delivered on Monday, 21 days after upholding the re-election of President Uhuru Kenyatta, the court said that whereas his public announcement and subsequent letter to IEBC was legal, within his rights and substantive, there was no way the repeat elections could have been called off.

The judges argued that withdrawal of a candidate from the presidential race was not contemplated in the Constitution and the Election Act.

They however noted that the withdrawal of a presidential candidate from the election was contained in Regulation 52 of the Election regulations that provides a procedure.

The court said the regulation was not applicable in the Raila case because nominations had already been conducted in May and that this was not among issues that led to nullification of the August 8 presidential poll.

They said that Regulation requires a candidate who intends to withdraw to do so within three days of nominations by writing to the national returning officer.

The judges — CJ David Maraga, DCJ Philomena Mwilu, justices Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u, Jackton Ojwang and Isaac Lenaola — said the impact of Odinga’s withdrawal and the matter of fresh nominations were the most vital in the two election petitions. 

“Our immediate question, therefore, is: did the Nasa candidate withdraw from the October 26 electoral contest?” Justice Wanjala asked. 

Raila had not only made public his withdrawal, but also written to IEBC, and Justice Wanjala said this “constituted a substantive and legally effective withdrawal from the election”.