Raila's lawyers speak out after Supreme Court ruling

Led by Senior Counsel James Orengo, the lawyers said although they accept the verdict, they do not agree with it.

According to the counsel, Monday’s verdict was “ideological” and a mistake on the part of the Supreme Court.

“We did not agree with the decision of the supreme court, but we agree with it. I am saying this as a seasoned practitioner: courts sometimes make mistakes which should be corrected over time. Yes, we need to accept it as per the law of the land, but it is a very ideological definition,” said Orengo.

He further stated that when the apex court issues the comprehensive ruling on September 21, they will evaluate it in detail.

“When the final judgement comes out we will have time to sit down and give a critique,” Orengo added.

Led by Chief Justice Martha Koome, the Supreme Court on Monday unanimously upheld the election of President-elect William Ruto in the August 9 polls.

"We declare the election of the first respondent as President-elect to be valid..." CJ Koome ruled.

Orengo at the same time challenged the court for dismissing as “outright forgeries” the logs they had presented to substantiate claims that the IEBC server was tampered with.

He maintained that they were legitimate documents acquired through the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI).

“I mean, forgeries, when the DCI, what we put before the court was from an agency of the government. I didn’t see them talking about a similar incident concerning the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), that is why I am saying it was a little ideological,” Orengo said. 

“The presentation of Forms 34A by somebody I really respect as an advocate, Julie Soweto, was described as hot air, but you could see when it was being presented , how engaged even the justices were. I found it rather odd for them to describe it as hot air, that’s why I am saying it is ideological because they would have said the other side’s evidence had more weight,” he added. 

Senior Counsel Philip Murgor, on his part, termed it “incredible” how the court shot down their submissions in all the nine key issues being determined in the petition.

“That we could have lost it on all the 9 points, we find it incredible that it would be the holding of the court. In several of those cases, we had overwhelming evidence. The servers were not open. The involvement of the Venezuelans one month before the elections and up to the 16th was not explained. It was an over reliance on the registrar's report that was not sufficient. The servers have all the answers,” Murgor said. 

“But it is incredible that we could lose on all the points and they win on all the points. Like my senior has said, it’s probably the ideological aspect of this judgement but they have to live with it just as we have to,” he added.

Odinga and his running mate Martha Karua had moved to court seeking to annul William Ruto’s election.

IEBC Chairperson Wafula Chebukati on August 15 declared Dr. 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.

Earlier in the day, Odinga also said he respects the Supreme Court’s ruling although he “vehemently disagrees” with it.

“We have always stood for the rule of law and the constitution. In this regard, we respect the opinion of the court although we vehemently disagree with their decision today,” said Raila in a statement issued shortly after the ruling.

“Our lawyers proffered irrefutable evidence and the facts were on our side, unfortunately the judges saw it otherwise,” he added.

Meanwhile, Karua said she respects the apex court’s decision although she does not agree with its findings.

“The court has spoken. I respect but disagree with the findings,” she said in a tweet.

The Supreme Court ruling now paves the way for William Ruto to be sworn in as Kenya’s fifth president next week on Tuesday.