Supreme court

NAIROBI, Kenya, Sep 5 — President-Elect William Ruto on Monday announced that he will be making a call to his chief political rival Raila Odinga and Azimio Party to chat a working arrangement to ensure the opposition plays its rightful role.

Speaking after his election was unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court, Ruto maintained that there will be no room for a ‘handshake’ referring to the March 2018 truce between outgoing President Uhuru Kenyatta and Odinga, which he repeatedly blamed Jubilee government’s failure in the second term.

“I will be putting a call to my worthy competitors beginning with Raila Odinga so that we can begin to contextualize on how we are going to work together for the people of Kenya. Those of us who will be working from the Executive and the Azimio Team which will be working from the opposition,” Ruto said.  

“I do not believe in the handshake stories, I believe an accountable government, held to account by a responsible opposition. That is how Kenya is going to move forward. So, that is the conversation I am looking forward to on how they will hold us into account and make sure that we deliver on the commitments that we have made to the people of Kenya and public resources are put to good use in an accountable manner so that we can reap the benefits of what the people of Kenya have done in electing us into office.”

The President-Elect further promised to serve all Kenyans regardless of their political affiliations pointing there will be no vengeance in his government but a united country.

“We offered alternative missions and visions and submitted to the sovereign decision of the citizens of Kenya.  We are only competitors not enemies. We vied to strengthen and unite Kenya not to divide and weaken it.”

“I therefore, consider all my competitors to be my worthy compatriots. Those who voted for me as well as those who voted for my competitors want the same thing for themselves and their children,” President-Elect said.

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld Ruto’s victory in the August 9 presidential election, ending weeks of political uncertainty and delivering a blow to his closest political rival Raila Odinga who had alleged fraud in the poll.

“This is a unanimous decision. The petitions are hereby dismissed, as a consequence we declare the first respondent (Ruto) as president-elect,” Chief Justice Martha Koome said.

In its decision, the Supreme Court said it was satisfied that the President-Elect attained the 50 per cent plus one threshold and upheld his election.

The judges found that the petitioners did not provide a watertight case in regard to the 50 per cent plus one vote requirement.

Koome who delivered the verdict on behalf of the seven-judge bench also said that the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) and the Chairperson Wafula Chebukati were right in rounding off percentages.

“The president-elect attained 50%+1 of the total votes cast as evidenced by Forms,” she stated.

The court ruled that Ruto was validly elected as the 5th President of the Republic of Kenya.

“Petitions one to seven are hereby dismissed. We declare that the election of William Ruto as President is valid, each party to bear its own costs,” Koome stated.

Ruto was declared the President-Elect on August 15, 2022 after garnering 7,176,141 votes, representing 50.49 per cent of the votes cast, against Odinga’s 6,942,930 votes, translating to 48.85 per cent of the votes cast.

While delivering the abridged ruling, CJ Koome explained the court’s position on each of the nine issues that the judges considered in the consolidated petition.

On the first issue of whether the technology deployed by IEBC for the conduct of August 9 poll met the standards of integrity, verifiability, security, and transparency to guarantee accurate and verifiable results, Koome said the court was satisfied.

She added that the bench was not convinced by the allegations made by petitioners that the technology did not meet the required standards.

Koome also stated that IEBC sufficiently explained how the election technology (KIEMS) kits work and that in areas where technology failed, they made sure that Kenyans voted using the manual register.

“The scrutiny orders by the court did not show any security breaches,” Koome stated.

On the second issue on whether there was interference in the uploading and transmission of polling station results from the polling stations to the IEBC public portal, Koome said that no credible evidence was presented.

“No credible evidence that forms 34A was being downloaded and uploaded was adduced, and that no evidence of middleman or evidence that IEBC chairman was part of the alleged conspiracy,” Koome stated.

On whether  there was a difference between Forms 34A uploaded on the IEBC public portal, those received at the national tallying center, and forms 34As issued to the agents at the polling stations, Koome said a scrutiny conducted on the forms from 41 polling stations didn’t return any irregularities.

The dismissed John Githongo’s allegations that some 56 hackers in Karen changed presidential results.

The seven-member bench also dismissed lawyer Julie Soweto’s allegations that Jose Camargo interfered with the presidential elections terming her spirited submission in court as ‘hot air’.

“There were no significant differences captured on physical original forma and uploaded forms at the IEBC portal which could have affected the credibility of the presidential election,” she stated.

On issue number four on whether the postponement of gubernatorial elections in Kakamega and Mombasa counties and parliamentary polls in Kitui Rural, Kachileba, Rongai, and Pokot South constituencies and electoral wards in Nyaki West in North Imenti constituency and Kwa Njenga in Embakasi South Constituency resulted in voter suppression to the detriment to the petitioners, Koome said that IEBC had a genuine reason to postpone elections in the said areas.

“It has not been shown that IEBC acted in bad faith in postponing the elections, we are satisfied that it was occasioned by a genuine mistake,” she said.

On the fifth issue on whether unexplained discrepancies between the votes cast for presidential candidates and other elective positions, the judges found that no evidence was produced by the petitioner to prove ballot stuffing.

“IEBC provided explanation on the discrepancies of the votes, the number of stray votes was insignificant and therefore can’t result in a nullification,” Koome stated.

On whether  the IEBC carried out the verification, tallying, and declaration of results per the provisions of articles 138 (3)C and 138 (10) of the Constitution, the judges found that verification, tallying and announcements or election results was done as contemplated by the constitution.

The court also said it did not find credible evidence that IEBC Chairperson acted unilaterally.

The judges observed that all the commissioners took part in the process, as they were seen on live Television interchangeably announcing the presidential election results. 

They also ruled that the four dissenting commissioners did not submit evidence that what Chebukati announced was different from what the results should have been.

“Are we to nullify an election on account of a last-minute boardroom rupture? This we cannot do,” Koome stated.

On the seventh issue, whether the President-Elect attained 50 percent plus one vote of the votes cast in accordance with article 138 (4) of the Constitution, the judges affirmed the threshold was attained.

On the eighth issue on whether there were irregularities and illegalities of such magnitude as to affect the final results of the presidential election, the court found that there were no irregularities and illegalities of such a scale as to affect the final result of the Presidential Election.