Raila Odinga's Azimio finally filed its petition at the Supreme court with a list of demands to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) and the President-elect William Ruto who have been listed as respondents.
According the document seen by Kenyans.co.ke Raila wants to be granted access to review all KIEMS kits used in 2022 general election
IEBC (first respondent) has also been asked to avail all materials including electronic documents, devises and equipment for presidential election within two days.
The Supreme Court has been asked to declare that the 9th respondent (Ruto) committed election irregularities, illegalities during election.
Also among the prayers listed in the petition is a forensic audit of electoral technology deployed during the election and a fresh election be conducted.
Raila also wants the Apex Court to declare that IEBC Chairman Wafula Chebukati (Second respondent) committed election irregularities during elections and be prosecuted.
Two other Kenyans also filed petitions challenging Ruto's win in the just concluded August 9 general election.
Speaking to the press after filing a physical petition, Tom Ojienda, one of Azimio lawyers said they were confident the election was not conducted as required by the constitution
Ojienda noted that the technology during the election was provided as enabler of the rights of people to vote but when it is comprised, it undermines the rights of voters, thus defiling the whole process.
"If you look at the technology which was used in this election, you will find that there are unauthorised users who tried to access the IEBC servers.
Technology which was deployed by IEBC in this exercise was one which did not facilitate the exercise of the right in the manner required by the law," Ojienda stated.
He also mentioned the KPMG 2017/2022 report which flagged unauthorized users who had access to the IEBC, system undermining the commission's quest to deliver free, fair and credible polls.
Ground for Raila's petition.
-The declaration of the false final result, exposed and confirmed a simmering Tower of Babel build on a process that had been waiting top crumble together with everything build on it.
-Moments before the declaration of the final results, four of the seven Commissioners of IEBC comprising the majority unprecedentedly and publicly came out and disowned the final result declared by the second respondent, exposing the underlying and/or behind closed door and clandestine interference and suppression of the deliberations and conduct of the electoral process.
-The declaration of the outcome of the presidential result - the public accusations and counter-accusations emanating from the Commissioners of the IEBC exposed the more critical fact that the electoral process had not been transparent, impartial, neutral, efficient,, accurate and accountable and the actions of IEBC had in reality often been only the actions of the second respondent (Chebukati) alone and were as such, wholly unconstitutional.
-The second respondent usurped the role and functions of first respondent in contravention of Article 138(3)(c) of the Constitution and purported to declare a result that had not been tallied and/or verified by the first respondent.
-The second respondent usurped the role and functions of the first respondent in the contravention of Article (3)(c) of the Constitution and purported to declare a result that not been tallied and/or verified in the 27 constituencies.
-Immediately before the declaration of the result of the presidential election, four commissioners of IEBC publicly disowned the the result declared by the Chebukati.
-The tally and count in the 27 constituencies would have affected the outcome of the presidential election.
-Before declaring the final result, the second respondent did not state or claim that the result was provisional in contravention of section 39 of the Election Act, if at all the results were provisional.
-At the time of declaring the final result of the presidential election, the first respondent had not received, uploaded and made publicly available for scrutiny on the public IEBC portal, Forms 34A in the 27 constituencies.
The final result declared by the first respondent was therefore not complete, accurate, verifiable or accountable and cannot be the basis for a valid and legitimate declaration.
-The second respondent without reason or justification, willfully refused to share and circulate the final presidential results with the presidential candidates' Chief Agents, Observers, media or even his fellow members f the Commission before declaring the decision of the first respondent on tallying and verification making the final announcement and declaration of the result unverifiable, unaccountable and unconstitutional
-The second respondent in isolation and by himself in contravention of Article 138 (c) purported to tally and verify the results leading to the final result declared. Such tallying, if any, was a nullity ab initio and did not constitute compliance with the Constitution's mandatory requirements.
-The unilateral action by the second respondent removed all checks and balances and destroyed the appropriate structures and mechanism to eliminate electoral malpractices" in violation of Article 86(d) as read with Articles 10(2) (a) and (c), 88(4) and (5); 138(3)(c) of the Constitution; together with Section 5(1) and 8 and second Schedule (Paras 5 & 7) of the IEBC Act, 2022.
