'Happy with your election?' Githu Muigai to elected leaders at the Supreme Court arguing process was 'irredeemably flawed'

Making his submission on Thursday, Prof. Muigai who is representing the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), poked holes at one of the lawyer’s submissions which termed the entire election process as “irretrievably flawed”.

“From the word go, one council said: ‘Everything that could have gone wrong went wrong. If that were true, and we deny that that is true, then it would mean that everything from voter registration, education, procurement, nomination, voting, counting, tallying, verification and declaration was totally flawed,” he said.

“In this court, there are no less than three Governors addressing you, elected under this election. There are no less than four Senators and Members of Parliament elected under this election” the senior counsel submitted.

According to Prof. Muigai, the seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice Martha Koome should ask the elected lawyers if they are happy with their election.

“If they are, how then is it that this election is irredeemably flawed? I suggest with tremendous respect that is the use of hyperbole,” he noted.

Azimio La Umoja One Kenya party leader Raila Odinga moved to the Supreme Court seeking to invalidate the results which made his competitor William Ruto the president-elect.

IEBC Chairperson Wafula Chebukati on August 15 declared Ruto as the winner of the presidential election after garnering 7,176,141 votes, representing 50.49 per cent of the total votes cast. 

Odinga came in second with 6,942,930 votes, which represents 48.85 per cent of the votes cast.

Among the things that Odinga and his running mate Martha Karua want from the Supreme Court is an order directing IEBC to organise and conduct a fresh presidential election and that the decision of four IEBC commissioners who rejected election results be upheld.

Odinga and Karua’s lawyer Zehrabanu Janmohamed during Wednesday’s hearing also beseeched the Supreme Court to bar Chebukati from conducting elections or holding public office. 

But to Janmohamed’s prayers, Prof. Muigai said: “Is that really a serious submission when the constitution itself maintains complex processes for the removal of a person? He is now to be removed by reference of affidavits on the basis of hearsay? I do not think it is a serious submission and I invite my lords not to act on it at all.”

Prof. Muigai further said the few errors admitted by the IEBC are not enough to convince the court to overturn the election results. He says that the petitions are full of “generalities, speculation and innuendos.”

“The petitions make grave allegations of a criminal nature. All that, without a shred of evidence, especially as it relates to the honourable Chebukati. The vilification against this chairman goes beyond anything we have ever had in this court. It was personal, vindictive. It was unwarranted,” Muigai submitted.

“There is nothing wrong with IEBC, there is nothing wrong with Wafula Chebukati. There is something very wrong with how people who participate in these elections accept or reject the outcome of these elections.”

Odinga and Karua’s petitions as well as their accompanying affidavits, according to Prof. Muigai, are hinging on irrelevant claims that cannot be used to nullify the elections or make sanctions against Mr Chebukati.

“The law has processes for removing the IEBC chair from office and he cannot be removed based on affidavits full of claims with no evidence,” the senior counsel said.

The seven-member bench is set to determine the petition by September 5.