In Summary
  • On Friday, Supreme Court judges in a majority decision nullified the election on account that there had been significant irregularities in results transmission.

  • The paper said the decision demonstrated that “democratic institutions are capable of acting independently.”

The New York Times has taken back its criticism of opposition leader Raila Odinga after he successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to nullify Uhuru Kenyatta’s re-election.

In an editorial on Sunday, the paper admitted it had erred in dismissing complaints raised by Mr Odinga and his National Super Alliance before the vote results were announced, and accused him of fanning ethnic violence.

REBUKE

On Friday, Supreme Court judges in a majority decision nullified the election on account that there had been significant irregularities in results transmission.

The Paper said the decision demonstrated that “democratic institutions are capable of acting independently.”

“The ruling was also a rebuke to international monitors and diplomats — and to this page — who were too quick to dismiss charges of irregularities…”

“The fears (of violence) were real, but the rush to judgment (sic) overlooked, among other things, that the supervisor of a new electronic voting system, Christopher Chege Msando, had been murdered and apparently tortured days before the election.”

Page 1 of 2