During the Supreme Court proceedings of the Presidential Petition earlier this week, lawyers arguing their cases found themselves in tough scenarios especially when the Judges asked for clarification on issues that were technical in nature.
Kenyans.co.ke has collated a number of these moments when the lawyers found themselves tongue-tied or unable to respond conclusively to questions from the Judge's bench.
1. Paul Muite- Security features on Forms 34A and 34B
Chief Justice David Maraga asked IEBC lawyer Paul Muite to clarify on the security features on the Forms 34A and 34B.
Mr Muite stated that the security features were not required by law but had been introduced by the IEBC as a measure to ensure the forms were secure.
In response, Maraga observed that if the electoral body had introduced the security measures to secure the forms, then why were they not applied on all the forms.?
A clearly flustered Muite tried to explain but admitted that he could have elaborated better under different circumstances.
“We have explanations My Lord, it is just that we do not have the time,” he defended himself.
2. Tom Macharia- Stray Ballots
Lawyers representing President Uhuru Kenyatta were on Tuesday embarrassed in court after they ineptly struggled to define a term they used while speaking about ballot papers used during the 2017 General Election.
The court room was thrown into disarray after the President's lawyers were asked to define what they meant by the term "stray ballots".
According to the lawyers, voters may have received all six ballots but only placed a mark on the presidential ballot leaving five others unmarked.
Justice Philomena Mwilu then tasked the lawyers to explain how the five unmarked ballot papers were accounted for.
"The format of voting prescribed by law is that you're given all six but provisions are made for what are referred to as stray ballots," Mr Macharia began to explain.
The lawyer then veered off tangent explaining that because the laws outlined that presidential ballots are tallied first, then the stray ballots had not been counted.
"Are you making the assumption that the voter votes for his preferred candidate and places all six in one ballot box," Justice Mwilu asked, in an effort to bring relevance to Mr Macharia's claim.
Mr Macharia, acknowledging that he could not answer the question, then gave way to IEBC lawyer Karori Kamau who set the record straight.
Read Also: Uhuru's Lawyers Embarrassed After Statement About Ballot Boxes
3. Paul Nyamodi - Provisional Results
IEBC's lawyer Paul Nyamodi tried to explain that there were no provisional results used during the elections.
He explained that the figures that were being displayed on electoral body portal were not the actual results and did not form the final tally.
Maraga then asked the lawyer to clarify what results were being displayed by the IEBC on the portal.
"The results on the forms 34A were sent electronically as text messages manually but they were not the results; they were provisional results. Sorry my Lord what used to be provisional results. There were no provisional results,” he tried to explain.
