The New York Times has backtracked on its earlier criticism of National Super Alliance (NASA) Leader Raila Odinga’s decision to challenge President Uhuru Kenyatta’s win.
Through an editorial piece on Sunday, the American paper took back their belittling piece where they described Kenya's Opposition as mere sore losers after the August polls defeat.
“We had said after Mr Kenyatta’s re-election had been initially confirmed that challenging it was a matter of sour grapes that could lead to ethnic strife.
"But preserving peace is best served by ensuring that democratic rules and institutions are respected, and Mr. Odinga’s charge deserved, and got, full consideration,” read the article titled Kenya’s Giant Step for Fair Elections.
They commended the Kenyan Supreme Court for the courageous decision to nullify the re-election of Uhuru describing it as a crucial milestone in the democracy of African countries.
“The ruling was also a rebuke to international monitors and diplomats and to our page who were too quick to dismiss charges of irregularities,” the New York Times stated.
The paper also noted that there were issues that were overlooked in the declaration of the election results such as the unsolved murder of IEBC ICT Deputy Director Christopher Msando days to the election.
On Friday, the Supreme Court nullified Uhuru's re-election, ordering for a fresh presidential poll in 60 days.
The court stated that IEBC did not conduct free and fair elections but cleared Kenyatta of any malpractice.
They also stated that the irregularities experienced affected the final outcome of the election.
Out of the 7 judges, 2 (Justice Jackton Ojwang' and Njoki Ndung'u) gave dissenting views saying the election was free and fair.
Chief Justice David Maraga stated that the election of President Uhuru Kenyatta was null and void and he was not validly elected.
