IEBC Vice-Chair Cherera cites 4 reasons why results announced by Chebukati are his own
Four commissioners of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) who disowned the presidential results have finally given their explanations.
Speaking to members of the press at Serena Hotel on Tuesday, August 16, 2022, the commissioners led by Vice-Chairperson Juliana Cherera cited four reasons why the results announced by IEBC chairperson Wafula Chebukati were his own.
Cherara reading a joint communique revealed that the percentage of the presidential results announced by Chebukati exceeds the 100 per cent threshold.
"In the Serena media briefing, we stated that we would NOT take ownership of the results of the August 15, 2022, presidential election declared and announced by Mr Chebukati. In this regard, our reasons to decline to take ownership of the results so declared and announced by Mr. Chebukati are as follows;
THAT the aggregation of the percentages of the results scored by the four presidential candidates who were on the ballot as declared by Mr. Chebukati presented to us a mathematical absurdity that defies logic. TAKE NOTICE that Mr.
Chebukati’s aggregation was as follows;
"We, therefore, declined to take ownership of the said results because the aggregation resulted in a total exceeding the 100 per cent which cast doubt on the accuracy of the source of the figures tallied, and when we demanded that we verify our record, Mr Chebukati declined, overruled us and insisted on declaring and announcing the said figures," she said.
The IEBC Vice-Chair further poked holes in the presidential results saying that other numbers as well didn't add up.
"Contrary to the Constitution and legislation, the results declared and announced DID NOT indicate the total number of registered voters, the total number of votes cast or the number of rejected votes, if any. In this regard, the results announced by Mr Chebukati lack a critical ingredient namely the total
number of valid votes cast to support the percentages scored by the four candidates.
"Unless demonstrated otherwise, we all know that a percentage is essentially a fraction of a whole number. Hence, if, for example, the 7.176 million valid votes cast in favour of the winning candidate as declared and announced by Chebukati translate to 50.49%, then it was 50.49% of what?
"Further TAKE NOTICE that Mr. Chebukati claimed that Raila Odinga attained 25% of votes in 34 counties
while William Ruto attained 25% in 39 counties—the question is; which figures in the 34 and 39 counties respectively constituted the independent variables to warrant Mr. Chebukati’s conclusion of 25% in 34 counties and 25% in 39 counties for Raila and Ruto respectively?
"In the absence of a credible and verifiable explanation, we concluded that the process that went into the generation of FORM 34C which Chebukati used to declare results of the presidential election was opaque and incapable of earning our ownership and confidence."
She added that;
"In the absence of a credible and verifiable explanation, we concluded that the process that went into the generation of FORM 34C which Chebukati used to declare results of the presidential election was
opaque and incapable of earning our ownership and confidence."
Cherara also cited a petition by Maina Kiai which sought Supreme Court's direction on how the IEBC should conduct itself.
"Guided by the authority of Maina Kiai case petition number 106 of 2016 as upheld by the court of appeal in civil appeal number 105 of 2017 and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Kenya we state categorically that the results of the presidential election held on August 9th 2022 declared and announced by Mr Wafula Chebukati on August 15th 2022 belonged to himself and do not represent the declaration and announcement by Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission.
"The commission has to process the results before they are declared and announced by the chairperson. For the avoidance of doubt let me quote the Maina Kiai case; It says 'We reiterate as we conclude that there is no doubt from the architect of the law we have considered that the people of Kenya did not intend to vest or concentrate such sweeping and boundless powers in one individual - the chairperson of the appellant.' The emphasis is that the commission's chairperson has conducted the election as though he is the national returning officer a non-existent role and his rule in declaring results that were not approved by plenary by all seven commissioners renders the results unconstitutional to the extent that this is his own results as opposed those of IEBC.
"In keeping to article 138 2 of the constitution there is no national, presidential election in Kenya but rather the presidential election is held in each constituency."
The IEBC Vice Chairperson also noted that Chebukati announced the presidential results before results from some constituencies were announced.
"That in contrary to the constitution and legislation by the time the chairman declared and announced the final results, results from certain constituencies had not been announced," she said.