- The reason elections are so volatile is because they are not transparent, nor are they fair, free and credible.
- If the Supreme Court uses the precedent of its historic ruling in September, there can be no outcome other than nullification.
There is little doubt that the next weeks will be bring immeasurable pressure on the judges of the Supreme Court as they delve into yet another cycle of election petitions following the sham polls of October 26.
Of course it need have gotten to this had the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) done its job well, and had it sought the Court’s guidance following the withdrawal of Mr Raila Odinga on October 10, using the same laws it had used in gazetting just two candidates for the repeat polls.
But IEBC, it decided to vote — yes vote! — on legal interpretation among its commissioners with only one of them being a lawyer!
The easier thing would have been to seek guidance from the Supreme Court but they decided against that on unclear — but certainly not legal — basis.
It need not have gotten to this had the IEBC taken time to reflect on why the previous polls were annulled and gotten all sides to the table to discuss how to remedy the situation.
Yes, IEBC is supposed to be independent, but independence of an institution is not “splendid isolation”.
Independence does not mean no consultations and no accountability.
And it need not have come to this had the Supreme Court raised the requisite quorum to hear the urgent application to put off the elections on October 25.
The lack of quorum was as historic as its September 1 decision, and we are not any clearer what caused the absenteeism.
That lack of quorum raises more issues now. Will the Supreme Court raise quorum this time?
A lack of quorum could mean retaining status quo and, given the divisions in the Court’s decision last time and with one judge indisposed, it could well be that only four show up.