From: Judy Miriga
Good People,
My worse fears is, in 2007/8 the police were found to have been in the offense and a big number of those murdered, were innocent people who were killed from their houses.
This kind of statement is worrisome and it causes lots of fears. Without police reform, and with this kind of public warning, police cannot be trusted where police is suppose to provide security of all……….
The world, more specifically President Obama with UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, should keep a closer watchful eye from any provocation and make sure that Kenyans stay safe from any attacks in the eventualities of Supreme Court Rueling and that, there is no repeat of 2007/8 casualties.
Judy Miriga
Diaspora Spokesperson
Executive Director
Confederation Council Foundation for Africa Inc.,
USA
http://socioeconomicforum50.blogspot.com
– – – – – – – – – – –
— On Fri, 3/29/13, Fred Osewe wrote:
From: Fred Osewe
Subject: POLICE BAN DEMOS A HEAD OF RULING
Date: Friday, March 29, 2013, 11:28 AM
“Calmness” is a word that has over and over been misused in Kenya, in the recent past, by both that meant well- and- evil for the nation. Least of all top in the list, of those that should not use this word are, Kibaki and Uhuru. For one, Kibaki started the lawlessness path, Kenya, happen to find itself in today- in 2007/08 by working with the now disbanded ECK to manipulate elections results, thereby stealing Kenyans their Sovereign right, only for later, to in an extremely lawless way, swear himself to power at the statehouse at midnight, an act which for external intervention, to restore back peace in Kenya, Uhuru has not only with the help of IEBC repeated the same, this time round, but has moved even a step further to assume the role and powers, of the presidency, in an even more disputed election, in total disregard of the law. What now remains, to be addressed, is whether or not the law, will come out in full force to protect Kenyans. Or Kenyans to restore law in the best way they know how! And looking around, Kenyans taking care of the forces personnel that violate their rights is not just a common thing, but is as well on the increase. And reaching, Kibaki, Uhuru, Kimaiyo and the rest, will be the easy part!
In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man- if you want anything done ask a woman.
From: Maurice Oduor
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 8:37 AM
Subject: POLICE BAN DEMOS A HEAD OF RULING
I would advise all Luos who live in heavily Kikuyu areas to not stay home on Saturday. The Kikuyu anger on Saturday will be unbearable.
Courage
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:23 AM, fred O aboge wrote:
old habits die hard! The new constitution protects the right to demonstration! This is just as illegal! As long as demonstrations are peaceful orderly and no one is rioting, they have no business “banning” demos!
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Samuel Omwenga wrote:
People are starting to lose it even before the Supreme Court makes it official March 4th elections were rigged.
Let’s just hope they confine their anger to these forums and not on the ground.
Peace, Unity and Truth
Omwenga
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Timothy Kihara wrote:
I totally agree they know as :
They know the idiots who think other proples property to be polling station to burn!
They also know the kings and queens of demonstration
They also know the tin gods of lies and distorters of truth who will cry the decision was hacked and changed before reading!
They also are privy to the foreign master’s warning who have realised their stooges might go no where come Saturday’s ruling despite insisting rejected votes be part of tallying!!!
Take kidero’s miserable advise – buy helmet if you intend to go near SC kesho.
Ukivaa ile ya mkeka kama unaenda city stadium ama nyayo usilaumu mtu more so yours truly.
Enjoy your Friday.
On Mar 29, 2013 3:42 PM, “Joseph Lister Nyaringo”
wrote:
What is behind the banning of demos by police a head of Supreme Court ruling where they have cited hot spots in the Country? Is this a reflection of being privy to the likely court ruling? Just a thought.
Joseph Lister Nyaringo – North America
www.listernyaringo.org
http://listernyaringo.blogspot.com/
In prosperity our friends knows us; in adversity we know our friends.
John Churton Collins
Lawyers: Vote re-tallying revealed discrepancies
Updated 3 hrs 21 mins ago
By Standard Digital Reporter
Nairobi, Kenya: The re-tallying of votes from 22 polling stations and an audit of all Forms 36 used in the March 4 election revealed errors that were disclosed to the Supreme Court on Friday.
Lawyers representing electoral officials immediately dismissed these “clerical errors” as insignificant to the final outcome.
Lawyers representing petitioners said the scrutiny revealed there were ten missing Forms 34 out of the 18,000 looked at in the re-tally. There were also errors in some of the Forms 36 used to declare results at the national tallying centre.
Form 34 is the statutory Declaration of Results at Polling Station in respect of the Presidential Election. Form 36 is the Declaration of aggregated tally of Results in a Constituency/county in respect of Presidential, National Assembly, County Women Representative, Senator, Governor and County Assembly Representative elections.
Lawyer Kethi Kilonzo, representing Africog, singled out Laikipia West constituency where the team said they got two Forms 36 hence “were not able to verify the votes cast”. Uhuru got 70,760 votes in the area.
She took issue with the fact that ten Forms 34, all for polling streams in different constituencies, were not provided to the scrutinising team.
“Under article 138 (4) a candidate must meet two thresholds of getting more than 25 per cent of votes cast in more than half of the counties and 50 percent plus one of the total votes cast,” she added. “The IEBC were under responsibility to tally and verify all 33,400 polling stations. The formula is mathematical and the constant is ‘all votes cast’. If there are Forms 34 missing, where are they and what are the results of those?”
She pointed out that the results were compiled by March 5 adding: “Even if returning officers were walking to Nairobi they would have reached by now,”
She said the IEBC made a decision to announce the winner without completing tallying from all polling stations.
“Even if it was one polling station, the chairman could not announce the results without that form in his hand,” she added, “In the 10 constituencies can the court state with certainty what the results were?”
She said with the results of the scrutiny ordered by the court, the judges should ask if the constant formula of tallying all votes cast had been used.
She asked the court to decide if the IEBC carried out its mandate as required by law and whether its declaration of winner should be upheld.
Lawyer George Oraro representing Prime Minister Raila Odinga said there were grave errors in Forms 36 from seven constituencies. He said in some instances, there were two Forms 36.
He said there were “huge discrepancies” in the Forms 36 used in the final tally of presidential results and added Uhuru Kenyatta could not have garnered the 50 per cent plus one vote based on the errors.
But the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission through lawyer Nani Mungai said the discrepancies in Forms 34 and Forms 36 were explained by Returning Officers in affidavits filed in the case.
Lawyer Fred Ngatia for Uhuru Kenyatta said there were clerical errors across the country but added they were not substantial.
“Voting, counting and tallying of the presidential election was done to a substantial degree of accuracy,” he said.
Lawyer Katwa Kigen representing Deputy-president elect William Ruto said the elections were conducted fairly.
“The elections were conducted by humans and humans commit errors, mistakes and oversight but in this case they are insignificant and do not suggest malice or collusion,” he said.
Chief Justice Willy Mutunga said they have retreated to write the judgment and will deliver the ruling on Saturday
Police ban demos ahead of court’s ruling
Inspector General of Police David Kimaiyo addresses a press conference in Nairobi on March 29, 2013. He is flanked by Samuel Arachi. PHOTO / ANN KAMONI
By JOHN NJAGI jnjagi@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted Friday, March 29 2013 at 13:44
Police have vowed to crackdown on planned demonstrations across the country ahead of Saturday’s ruling by the Supreme Court ruling on an presidential petition filed by Prime Minister Raila Odinga.
Inspector General of Police David Kimaiyo said they are aware of people who plan to hold demonstrations regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on the petition.
The police have consequently banned any assembly outside the premises of the Supreme Court on Saturday and instead urged the public to follow the proceedings on television.
“This should not be construed as denial of right to association, but a precaution to ensure criminal elements do not hijack such demonstrations to engage in lawlessness,” he said.
Mr Kimaiyo, in a security briefing at his office, cited Nairobi where supporters of both the Coalition for Reforms and Democracy (Cord) and Jubilee Coalition plan to converge outside the Supreme Court when the judges will be reading out their ruling.
According to the Inspector General, the planned demonstrations are being co-ordinated by non-governmental organisations.
Mr Kimaiyo advised NGOs seeking to engage in demonstrations to first seek police security.
Katiba La Mwananchi is one such organisation that has been warned not to engage in demonstrations, because it lacks the capacity to ensure security of its members and ward off criminals who may take advantage of the occasion.
At the same time, the police boss said they have gathered evidence on some people who are distributing pangas, simis, machetes and clubs in parts of Kibera, Mathare, Dandora, Kariobangi and some parts of the Coastal region.
“We also wish to advice leaders issuing statements that are tantamount to incitement, hate speech and negative stereotyping to desist from doing so. We have noticed increased polarization of the country emanating from such statements and some are done through social media and those perpetuating this know themselves,” the police boss said.
Poll was a fraud on voters, argues lawyer
“They (IEBC) conducted the elections in total contravention of the constitution and their own regulations” Kethi Kilonzo, AfriCog lawyer. Photo/BILLY MUTAI NATION MEDIA GROUP
By PAUL OGEMBA pogemba@ke.nationmedia.com AND JOHN NGIRACHU jngirachu@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted Wednesday, March 27 2013 at 22:30
Videos were among the evidence presented at the Supreme Court on Wednesday in a petition challenging the election of Mr Uhuru Kenyatta as Kenya’s fourth President.
Two petitioners, Prime Minister Raila Odinga and the African Centre for Open Governance (Africog) laid out what they said was evidence that Mr Kenyatta was not validly elected as the hearing of the petition proper began.
Africog was the first to present its case. It alleged massive irregularities, contravention of the Constitution and violation of electoral laws by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC).
Through its lawyer, Ms Kethi Kilonzo, the civil society group showed videos of results announcement at Nyeri and Bomet counties tallying centres which Ms Kilonzo claimed were different from the final results announced by the IEBC and captured in Form 36.
“What the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission announced as the final presidential tally was a complete fraud since the effects of the irregularities were that what candidates got was not what they ought to have got,” she said.
For Nyeri, the organisation played a video in court in which the county tallying officer read the final results showing Mr Uhuru Kenyatta having 317,881 votes with his closest challenger, Mr Raila Odinga, getting 6,075 votes.
According to Ms Kilonzo, the final tally by IEBC showed Mr Kenyatta’s votes as 318,880 while Mr Odinga’s votes were given as 5,638. The rejected votes went down from 3,030 to 2,465.
“Form 36 presented by IEBC is filled by fraud against every individual who queued for hours to vote for their preferred candidate and the only logical solution would be to invalidate the results of the entire county,” Ms Kethi said.
“Every man or woman is entitled to one vote but the end of the IEBC conduct did not justify the means. They conducted the elections in total contravention of the Constitution and their own regulations which cannot lead to a legitimate government,” she said.
Ms Kethi gave another example of Machakos Town constituency where she alleged that the IEBC register had only 125 voters registered without biometric information but the final results showed a total of 3,182.
The court was also shown another video from Bomet County, which Ms Kilonzo claimed, showed the final presidential votes tally pinned on the wall at a tallying centre differing from the one announced by IEBC and indicated on Form 36.
Said Ms Kilonzo of another centre, Charity Primary School in Kieni constituency: “The principle register… had only one registered voter, but the result shows Mr Kenyatta got 310 votes. Even the returning officer did not indicate how many registered to vote or the results of other candidates”.
She added that the IEBC cannot say it did not break the law since it went against its own promise to deliver results within 48 hours, adding that the electronic transmission failure was IEBC’s own making to enable stealing of votes.
“We cannot understand the mischief behind the system failure since it was not for the benefit of the commission but for the people of Kenya to ensure a free, fair and transparent election,” Ms Kilonzo said.
Should the Supreme Court find the election was bungled, Ms Kilonzo argued that the judges should order the Director of Public Prosecution to investigate and prosecute those involved in committing electoral offences.
The formal hearings begun with the judges announcing that they had distilled all the issues presented by the lawyers, who couldn’t agree on what the judges should decide, and condensed them into four.
The first Issue is whether Mr Kenyatta and William Ruto were validly elected in the presidential election.
Second is whether the presidential election was free, fair and transparent and in compliance with the law.
Third is whether the rejected votes ought to have been considered in calculating the final percentages.
The final one is what orders the court should make after determining the three issues.
Oraro: Report confirms elections results doubtful
Updated 1 hrs 53 mins ago
By Wahome Thuku
Nairobi, Kenya: Prime Minister Raila Odinga says the scrutiny of results initiated by the judiciary has confirmed his cases that there were massive discrepancies in the tallying of presidential elections.
His lawyer George Oraro asked the Supreme Court to use the report to find that the elections results were not credible.
“You can’t rely on results as provided by the IEBC because even from exam of 25 polling stations you have variation of 3,347 additions between form 34 and 36,” Oraro told the court.
Oraro pointed out that the report did not throw a lot of light in this scrutiny since not all forms 36 had been scrutinized.
Raila asked the judges to consider the scrutiny as override all other submissions in the cases since it had been initiated by the court itself.
There were grave errors in documents from several constituencies.
Some had two forms 36 and others had varying number of voters yet others had incomplete numbers, Raila argued.
The PM said no re-tallying had been done on report of the 22 polling stations which they had raised issues with.
The scrutiny was based on the registered voters in the principle register provided by the IEBC.
“Even after the registers were closed there were still registrations of voters. No green book or special register was produced in court,” Oraro claimed.
He noted that according to the report forms 34 were missing from 10 polling stations.
“Neither ourselves nor this court have been provided with these form 34,”
He added, “You have remarks of more voters than those registered irrespective of where you are looking at.”
He said if the variances were considered the results would be that the winning candidate would not get 50 per cent plus one votes.