Kenya petitioners to be handed voting data

NAIROBI: Kenya’s election board must give access to election returns to parties challenging President Uhuru Kenyatta’s victory in last month’s presidential election, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

Access to the original vote tally forms and a copy of the voter register must immediately be granted to the petitioners, a former lawmaker and two human rights activists, the judges said. They denied a request for access to the electronic devices used in vote counting. The legal challenges come after the court nullified Kenyatta’s August victory and ordered a new election, an unprecedented move in Africa.

The current proceedings may be the last chance for legal scrutiny of the second election, held on October 26. The protracted political crisis has stirred fears for the stability of the nation, a regional hub for trade, diplomacy and security. The court has until Monday to rule on the two petitions. If the election result is upheld, Kenyatta will be sworn in on November 28.

Chief Justice David Maraga told the petitioners they must file a report on their findings from the returns by today.

After yesterday’s ruling, lawyers for the petitioners began presenting their cases, arguing that the poll’s outcome is void because the election board did not hold fresh nominations after the earlier poll was invalidated, among other reasons.

“Our position is you cannot have a fresh presidential election without a fresh round of nominations,” said Benjamin Musyoki, a lawyer for former legislator Harun Mwau.

The lawyer for the two activists, Julie Soweto, also argued that voter turn-out – just 39%, because opposition leader Raila Odinga boycotted the election – required the court to consider whether the election conformed “to the spirit and intent of the constitution”.

Violence before and during the election also marred the process, Soweto said. She also referred to remarks by the election board chair the week before polling – he said he could not guarantee the vote would be free and fair, citing interference from politicians and threats of violence against his colleagues.

The process in the Supreme Court, however, may not repair the rifts opened by this year’s prolonged elections season.