In Summary
  • During the ruling on the presidential election petition, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal decision, which said results declared at polling centres could not be altered.
  • “What happens when the national returning officer reads a result that he knows could be wrong? It is in those circumstances that we seek a clarification,” he said.
  • Mr Karori said that in IEBC’s understanding, the national returning officer was expected to compare results in Forms 34A against tallies in Forms 34B.

Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to tell it what to do when poll results do not tally.

IEBC lawyer Kamau Karori said the court had stated that the national returning officer had the obligation of comparing results in Forms 34A and 34B.

During the ruling on the presidential election petition, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal decision, which said results declared at polling centres could not be altered.

“What happens when the national returning officer reads a result that he knows could be wrong? It is in those circumstances that we seek a clarification,” he said.

RESULTS VERIFICATION

Mr Karori added that the application was not a review of the Supreme Court judgment or an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal petition, popularly known as the Maina Kiai case.

He said the Supreme Court judges explained that among the reasons they annulled the presidential election was because the commission did not verify the results by comparing Forms 34B against the results electronically transmitted in Forms 34A.

In the Kiai case, the court ruled that the only verification the presidential poll returning officer could do was to confirm that the candidate met the threshold decreed in the Constitution.

Page 1 of 2