- The Supreme Court decision did not pronounce itself on who might have won the popular vote.
- It is only a reconstructed IEBC enjoying the confidence of both sides that can be trusted with the repeat election.
President Uhuru Kenyatta and his angry hordes are living under the delusion that the 1.4 million vote margin that had secured him the presidential election remains intact.
They are comforting themselves with the self-serving argument that the Supreme Court’s nullification of his August 8 victory was grounded only on problems with the result tallying and transmission system but it did not question the actual votes count announced by Returning Officer Wafula Chebukati.
So they want to believe that the fresh election set for October 17 will be just a reconfirmation of the annulled result.
Opposition presidential candidate Raila Odinga and his own hopeful hordes are also suffering their delusions.
They believe that the successful Nasa petition that annulled the presidential election results confirms the claim that he was robbed of electoral victory.
They thus hold that he was the actual winner of the election and the repeat poll will serve merely as an affirmation of his right to State House.
The fact is that neither President Kenyatta nor Mr Odinga have grounds to believe as they do.
The Supreme Court decision read by Chief Justice David Maraga did not pronounce itself on who might have won the popular vote.
It just found that the vote tallying and result transmission systems were so flawed that it was impossible to go with the outcome reported by the chairman of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission.
Under that scenario, it is unlikely that even the full ruling set to be delivered within the next nine days will clear the air on who might have been the winner or loser.
President Kenyatta’s supporters now accuse the Supreme Court judges of delivering a faulty judgement because they did not go the whole hog and order a recount of the votes cast. That is a time-barred argument.
The President’s lawyers had every opportunity in court to apply for a recount but spurned the opportunity.
Maybe he should refuse to pay the legal fees — or report his battery of advocates to the Law Society of Kenya for dereliction of duty.
Mr Odinga’s supporters, in turn, believe that victory was theirs on the basis of claims that the IEBC computer system was hacked and the vote count manipulated.
But the ‘evidence’ of computer hacking — publicly presented even before the Supreme Court petition was filed — was, interestingly, never presented in court.