By Salim Mutuma
Four commissioners of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission who yesterday rejected Presidential election results that declared Kenya Kwanza Presidential candidate William Ruto the President elect have shared reasons for their reservations.
IEBC Vice-Chair Juliana Cherera and Commissioners Francis Wanderi, Justus Abonyo and Irene Masit said they were not involved in the final processing of form 34C that Chairperson Wafula Cebukati used to announce the results.
They said the sum of the percentages scored by Mr Odinga, Dr Ruto, Roots Party’s George Wajackoya and Waihige Mwaure of Agano party was 100.01 percent and that while announcing the winner, Mr Chebukati did not indicate the total number of votes cast and rejected among other vital elements.
“We were part of the exercise until the last phase (tallying). Even at the Bomas (of Kenya), the cumulative numbers scored by the candidates were not displayed to the public nor shared with the commissioners,” Ms Cherera told journalists during a press briefing at Serena Hotel.
Mr Chebukati, they said, allegedly shared with them the contents of Form 34C around 4:30PM and did not give them an opportunity to interrogate and analyse it.
Ms Cherera claimed that over 20 constituencies had not been announced by the time the IEBC Chair made the results public.
“Our main issue is lack of involvement in making of the decision which was the final product to be given to Kenyans,” one of them said.
Ms Cherera said the results were unconstitutional and belonged to Mr Chebukati and not the electoral commission.
Here’s their full speech
We (commissioners of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), took an oath of office to defend the constitution and the law in discharge of our duties independently.
We have remained faithful to our oath of office and shall continue to do so. We collectively and unanimously make the following statement pursuant to the yesterday’s media briefing at the Serena Hotel Nairobi where we promised to issue a comprehensive statement with regard to the results of the August 9, 2022 presidential election declared and announced by IEBC Chair Wafula Chebukati.
In the Serena media briefing, we stated that we would NOT take ownership of the results of the last week’s presidential election and in this regard, our reasons to decline to take ownership of the results are as follows;
First, the aggregation of the percentages of the results scored by the four presidential candidates who were on the ballot as declared by Mr Chebukati presented to us a mathematical absurdity that defies logic. TAKE NOTICE that the summation of RAILA ODINGA—48.85% WILLIAM RUTO—50.49% WAIHIGA MWAURE—0.23% WAJAKOYA GEORGE—0.44% is 100.01 percent.
0.1% translates to approximately 142,000 votes (The Press Point verified should be 1420), which would make a significant difference in the final result.
We therefore declined to take ownership of the said results because the aggregation resulted in a total exceeding the 100 percentage which cast doubt on the accuracy of the source of the figures tallied, and when we demanded that we verify our record, Mr. Chebukati declined, overruled us and insisted on declaring and announcing the said figures.
Contrary to the Constitution and legislation, the results declared and announced DID NOT indicate the total number of registered voters, the total number of votes cast or the number of rejected votes, if any. In this regard, the results announced by Mr Chebukati lack a critical ingredient namely the total number of valid votes cast to support the percentages scored by the four candidates.
Unless demonstrated otherwise, we all know that a percentage is essentially a fraction of a whole number. Hence, if, for example, the 7.176 million valid votes cast in favour of the winning candidate as declared and announced by Chebukati translate to 50.49%, then it was 50.49% of what?
Mr Chebukati claimed that Raila Odinga attained 25% of votes in 34 counties while William Ruto attained 25% in 39 counties—the question is; which figures in the 34 and 39 counties respectively constituted the independent variables to warrant his conclusion of 25% in 34 counties and 25% in 39 counties for Raila and Ruto respectively?
In the absence of a credible and verifiable explanation, we concluded that the process that went into the generation of FORM 34C which Chebukati used to declare results of the presidential election was opaque and incapable of earning our ownership and confidence.
Guided by the authority of the Maina Kiai case (Petition No.106 of 2016 as upheld by the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No.105 of 2017 and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Kenya) we state categorically that the results of the presidential election belong to Mr Chebukati himself and do not represent a declaration and announcement by IEBC.
The Commission has to process the results before they are declared and announced by the Chairperson.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me quote the Maina Kiai Case “we reiterate, as we conclude that there is no doubt from the architecture of the laws we have considered that the people of Kenya did not intend to vest or concentrate such sweeping and boundless powers in one individual , the chairperson of the appellant”.
The emphasis is that Mr Chebukati conducted the election as though he is the National Returning Officer, a non-existent role, and his role in declaring results that were not approved at plenary by all 7 commissioners renders the results unconstitutional.
In keeping with Article 138(2) of the Constitution, there is no national presidential election in Kenya but rather the presidential election is held in each constituency.
Contrary to the Constitution and legislation, by the time Mr Chebukati declared and announced final results, results from certain constituencies had not been announced.
