Supreme Court to Ruto, IEBC and Chebukati: We’ve heard you, but…
At the end of day two of the oral submissions by William Ruto, IEBC and its chairman Wafula Chebukati, the Supreme Court judges have asked an array of questions ranging from the role of IEBC Chairperson to what the maintenance of the IEBC servers actually entailed.
The commission and it’s role
Justice Smokin Wanjala inquired about the IEBC Commissioners’ role and what their oversight entailed.
Justice Njoki Ndung’u asked for clarification on what would happen if the IEBC Chair released the incorrect results, citing Prof. Githu Muigai’s statement that the term “commission” may be used in a variety of ways.
On his part, Justice William Ouko questioned who granted the IEBC Chair the authority to gazette himself as the returning officer for the presidential election.
Justice Isaac Lenaola questioned IEBC Chair Wafula Chebukati’s decision to announce the presidential results when there was still plenty of time, claiming that the extra time would have been used for consultations with the four dissenting commissioners.
Justice Philomena Mwilu asked for advice on what the court should do given that the commission is split.
Justice Njoki Ndung’u sought information on what transpired when other election results were obtained and how they were communicated to the public, with a focus on whether the other commissioners were involved.
She also inquired as to what responses meant when they stated that a commissioner is in charge of a certain docket and whether they (the Commissioners) hold the post till after the election.
Justice Smoking Wanjala was curious about the’maintenance’ performed by the Venezuelan national who had been permitted access to the IEBC systems.
“Was the IEBC system penetrated by the Venezuelan? What was the Venezuelan maintaining in the IEBC server?” he posed to lawyer Mahat Somane.
Justice William Ouko wanted to know how many votes were cast in the 235 polling sites that did not employ KIEMS kits. He requested that the IEBC provide a detailed report on the number of stray ballots cast in the August 9 election and their distribution across counties.
Following the misunderstanding over whether or not the results from the 27 constituencies were tallied in the final result announced by the IEBC Chair, Justice Smokin Wanjala requested explanation on whether the abovementioned results were truly verified and tallied, as well as why they were not announced at the national tallying center.
The court also inquired of the Attorney General’s office what the court was to do with their submission.