Lawyers representing the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) chairperson Wafula Chebukati on Thursday, September 1, made their submissions in the petition challenging William Ruto's win.
Senior Counsel Kamau Karori explained the meaning of a commission in countering the one espoused by Vice Chairperson Juliana Cherera and the other three dissenting commissioners.
The legal team representing the four, on Wednesday, August 31, submitted that the minority group led by Chebukati cannot represent the commission. As such, they argued that the isolating commissioners were right in declining to take ownership of the results.
In their affidavits, the commissioners also accused Chebukati of unilaterally tallying, verifying and declaring the results of the presidential election devoid of the involvement of his fellow commissioners.
However, Karori- in his submissions deconstructed the pleadings made by the commissioners as to who can represent the commission.
While quoting Article 250 of the constitution, Karori stated that the commission is the corporate body and not individual commissioners as advanced by the four commissioners.
“These commissioners are members of a commission, they are not the commission. Where the law refers to the commission it is not referring to the commissioners but rather the body corporate established under the provisions of article 253 of the constitution,” he stated.
Karori went on to cite Section 11 IEBC Act which outlines the establishment of the secretariat and the commission- which consists of the commissioners and the secretariat.
The counsel argued that the members of staff who were involved in the process of tallying and verifying the results and as such the chair did not unilaterally conduct the aforementioned activities.
"This is amplified by section 11 of the IEBC Act which establishes the secretariat and the commission so that the commission consists of the commissioners and the secretariat. The secretariat is such professionals, technical and administrative officers and support staff that may be appointed by the commission in the discharge of its functions," Karori read.
Announcement of 27 constituencies
Chebukati's defence team also moved to counter the grounds raised by the petitioner that the IEBC did not announce the results of 27 constituencies before making the final declaration.
In his argument, Karori underscored that the results in these constituencies were tallied and verified and as such were incorporated in the final tally used in declaring the winner. According to the lawyer, the constitution does not categorically imply that the results in each of the 290 constituencies have to be announced.
“The constituency does not stipulate the announcement of constituency results as a precursor of declaring the final results.”
He further attributed the failure to announce the results to the chaos witnessed at the Bomas National Tallying Center.
"Members, some of them who are in this court confronted the chairperson, threw down chairs and assaulted the chairperson with the intention of stopping the process," he argued.
"It cannot fall from the lips of those people who tried to stop that process to come before you and say that the results of the 27 constituencies were not publicly announced and yet you are the ones who precipitated a situation where there was disorder and chaos," added Karori.
