Chief Justice David Maraga and lawyer for the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) Paul Muite were on Monday involved in a brief exchange over the role of the National Returning Officer in the presidential election.
It all started when the CJ directed Mr Muite to read the Elections Act Section 39 1(c) but the Senior Counsel insisted that he was conversant with the contents of the Act.
CJ Maraga, however, refused to hear any of it forcing Mr Muite to read out loud the Act.
[caption caption="Lawyer Paul Muite at a past Court session"]
[/caption]
After reading the contents of the Act, Mr Muite hit out at the CJ and the bench stating: " You are the ones, it is your judgment that caused confusion now you are throwing it back to me?
"Clarify what you want the National Returning Officer to do and he will do it. Your Lordship the Chief Justice stated that if there is another petition you would do the same and we want to avoid the expenses of a repeat election.
"What forms are you saying that the National Returning Officer should rely on forms 34A or 34B? and if there is an error what should we do?" a seemingly agitated Muite posed.
The duo clashed during the hearing of a petition filed by IEBC Chair Wafula Chebukati.
[caption caption="IEBC Chair Wafula Chebukati"]
[/caption]
In the petition, Mr Chebukati is seeking clarification on whether he can correct inconsistencies if forms 34A from the polling stations fail to tally with 34B from the consistencies.
“Clearly, there was an oversight in the judgment to the extent that the court did not complete its directions on how the 2nd Respondent (the chairman) should handle or treat any discrepancy in the tallies in forms 34B when compared with the tally of the results in forms 34A,” Chebukati's petition read in part.
Here is the video courtesy of KTN NEWS:
[video:]
