To suggest that there is some law that empowers the chairperson of the appellant, as an individual to alone correct, vary, confirm, alter, modify or adjust the results electronically transmitted to the national tallying centre from the constituency tallying centres, is to donate an illegitimate power. Such a suggestion would introduce opaqueness and arbitrariness to the electoral process - the very mischief the Constitution seeks to remedy. We reiterate the words of the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in George Mike Wanjohi (supra) that;
“112. ... Apart from the priority attaching to the political and constitutional scheme for the election of representatives of governance agencies, the weight of the people’s franchise - interest is far too substantial to permit one official, or a couple of them, including the returning officer, unilaterally to undo the voters’ verdict, without having the matter resolved according to law, by the judicial organ of State. It is manifest to this court that an error regarding the electors’ final choice, if indeed there is one, raises vital issues of justice such as can only be resolved before the courts of law.”
]The lowest voting unit and the first level of declaration of presidential election results is the polling station. The declaration form containing those results is a primary document and all other forms subsequent to it are only tallies of the original and final results recorded at the polling station.
Polling station is final. That is the motivation of the law.
34A is scanned and relayed to CTC and NTC. 2 locations(Lets ignore implementation details of IT). 3 if you count the portal.
CTC uses 34A to generate 34B. NTC relies on 34B to generate 34C. NTC then declares the final result from 34C.
If NTC sees anomalies between 34B and 34A, they can make a public note of that while making the declaration. Especially if the anomalies can impact the result. But they cannot change it. This can be used in a petition that IEBC itself can support if they so choose.
The question is why send scans to 2 locations, when only one can do? It seems to me to be an extra check. Almost a system of checks and balances between CTC and NTC. The more people you share the info with, the more robust the checks. Hence the portal.
Now if CTC gets it wrong, it could be that they have different 34As, they suck at arithmetic, or they were hoping not to be caught. Whatever it is, NTC is free to make note of it at the declaration.
vooke, Mwilu says it was part of verification: meant to ensure identical results throughout transmissions. Its meant to catch manipulators.But Kiai case says the chairperson can’t even fantasize verification nor can he amend,vary,correct.... UNLIKE previously where they needed to verify. In fact the case was premised on this
Polling station is final. That is the motivation of the law.
34A is scanned and relayed to CTC and NTC. 2 locations(Lets ignore implementation details of IT). 3 if you count the portal.
CTC uses 34A to generate 34B. NTC relies on 34B to generate 34C. NTC then declares the final result from 34C.
If NTC sees anomalies between 34B and 34A, they can make a public note of that while making the declaration. Especially if the anomalies can impact the result. But they cannot change it. This can be used in a petition that IEBC itself can support if they so choose.
The question is why send scans to 2 locations, when only one can do? It seems to me to be an extra check. Almost a system of checks and balances between CTC and NTC. The more people you share the info with, the more robust the checks. Hence the portal.
Now if CTC gets it wrong, it could be that they have different 34As, they suck at arithmetic, or they were hoping not to be caught. Whatever it is, NTC is free to make note of it at the declaration.
Right except on one thing. 34B are final as well only to be challenged in court. This was the basis of the Kiai case.
How can they be final if the chairperson makes ‘public note’?
What is the purpose of this ‘public note’?
Sending a scan to two locations is the bullshiet I’m saying; it adds confusion because you are trying to do away with provisional results while at the same time subjecting tallies to ‘public note’
Note SCOK is saying Chebukati announced results
1. without 34As and
2. without verifying
So your concept of ‘public note’ is wrong
Note SCOK is saying Chebukati announced results
1. without 34As and
2. without verifying
So your concept of ‘public note’ is wrong
I am just quoting Philomena Mwilu. She is part of the majority.
He says he cant ammend. Not that he cant verify. Those laws were enacted to discourage any change/manipulation of forms at any stage of transmission.vooke, Mwilu says it was part of verification: meant to ensure identical results throughout transmissions. Its meant to catch manipulators.But Kiai case says the chairperson can’t even fantasize verification nor can he amend,vary,correct.... UNLIKE previously where they needed to verify. In fact the case was premised on this
What exactly is he ‘verifying’?
Termie,
If the note is not necessary since it can only be challenged in court, why is it part of his responsibility to receive all these before declaration seeing the declaration is not in any way affected by the forms 34As?
Ok, they can do everything but vary.He says he cant ammend. Not that he cant verify. Those laws were enacted to discourage any change/manipulation of forms at any stage of transmission.vooke, Mwilu says it was part of verification: meant to ensure identical results throughout transmissions. Its meant to catch manipulators.But Kiai case says the chairperson can’t even fantasize verification nor can he amend,vary,correct.... UNLIKE previously where they needed to verify. In fact the case was premised on this
What exactly is he ‘verifying’?
It serves the purpose whether the forms are ‘verified’ or not. Receiving (and sharing them in the portal )them suffices. The whole country will be staring at these errors and everyone is helpless against them till the results are declared to open petition floodgates. Make any sense?Termie,
If the note is not necessary since it can only be challenged in court, why is it part of his responsibility to receive all these before declaration seeing the declaration is not in any way affected by the forms 34As?
For the same reason, we as Kenyans need to be able to access them on the portal. It's a redundancy. A redundancy that makes it just that little bit harder for someone to cheat.
He has the DUTY to verify. The point if these laws was to ensure any manipulation at any stage, polling to constituency to NTC, would be known. It was meant to discourage any temptations to change the forms. Mwilu said today it is meant to ensure that it is the exact same form that was transmitted at the polling that ends up at the NTC. Its alk designed with our election history in mind.Ok, they can do everything but vary.He says he cant ammend. Not that he cant verify. Those laws were enacted to discourage any change/manipulation of forms at any stage of transmission.vooke, Mwilu says it was part of verification: meant to ensure identical results throughout transmissions. Its meant to catch manipulators.But Kiai case says the chairperson can’t even fantasize verification nor can he amend,vary,correct.... UNLIKE previously where they needed to verify. In fact the case was premised on this
What exactly is he ‘verifying’?
Means regardless of any error of any magnitude they run into during the verification,they will still be guided by 34B.
So verification does not affect the declaration in any way. What’s the purpose of the exercise?
Kadame,He has the DUTY to verify. The point if these laws was to ensure any manipulation at any stage, polling to constituency to NTC, would be known. It was meant to discourage any temptations to change the forms. Mwilu said today it is meant to ensure that it is the exact same form that was transmitted at the polling that ends up at the NTC. Its alk designed with our election history in mind.Ok, they can do everything but vary.He says he cant ammend. Not that he cant verify. Those laws were enacted to discourage any change/manipulation of forms at any stage of transmission.vooke, Mwilu says it was part of verification: meant to ensure identical results throughout transmissions. Its meant to catch manipulators.But Kiai case says the chairperson can’t even fantasize verification nor can he amend,vary,correct.... UNLIKE previously where they needed to verify. In fact the case was premised on this
What exactly is he ‘verifying’?
Means regardless of any error of any magnitude they run into during the verification,they will still be guided by 34B.
So verification does not affect the declaration in any way. What’s the purpose of the exercise?
After verification what happens - if you discover the forms have issues here and there - what does Chebukati do? Ask the RO to varify or alter? If he declares a whole constitutuency election invalid because the form has issues - what is implication on that ? Isn't that court business.
I think its brilliant actually. Chebukati cant be tempted to massage them at NTC and the R.O. knowing the 34 A has also gone to NTC cant either. Finally, the physical forms finally arrives to ensure even further that all the points (KIEMS, constituency results and NTC and paper form) are identical. No monkeying around.It serves the purpose whether the forms are ‘verified’ or not. Receiving (and sharing them in the portal )them suffices. The whole country will be staring at these errors and everyone is helpless against them till the results are declared to open petition floodgates. Make any sense?Termie,
If the note is not necessary since it can only be challenged in court, why is it part of his responsibility to receive all these before declaration seeing the declaration is not in any way affected by the forms 34As?
For the same reason, we as Kenyans need to be able to access them on the portal. It's a redundancy. A redundancy that makes it just that little bit harder for someone to cheat.
I think its brilliant actually. Chebukati cant be tempted to massage them at NTC and the R.O. knowing the 34 A has also gone to NTC cant either. Finally, the physical forms finally arrives to ensure even further that all the points (KIEMS, constituency results and NTC and paper form) are identical. No monkeying around.Yes kadame,
This only works of course if IEBC follow this law/system. :) Thats why Mwilu and company refuse to compromise on this duty. Once you decide P.O., R.O. or Chebu can ignore bits they dont like, like Kiems, verification etc, the whole point of this elaborate systems of checks fails.
Sawa. To each their own. Verifying means he must have all forms and check them against R.O. results. All variations will be noted before a court. This discourages R.O. games as he knows he will still be checked. Chebu is prevented from varying so that he doesnt attempt to screw with the results and make everything artificially match at NTC. I think it is perfect for the thieving Kenya negro.I think its brilliant actually. Chebukati cant be tempted to massage them at NTC and the R.O. knowing the 34 A has also gone to NTC cant either. Finally, the physical forms finally arrives to ensure even further that all the points (KIEMS, constituency results and NTC and paper form) are identical. No monkeying around.Yes kadame,
This only works of course if IEBC follow this law/system. :) Thats why Mwilu and company refuse to compromise on this duty. Once you decide P.O., R.O. or Chebu can ignore bits they dont like, like Kiems, verification etc, the whole point of this elaborate systems of checks fails.
Not varying is cool and sexy
But ‘verifying’ results you can’t vary is dumb and serves no purpose whatsoever.
After verification what happens - if you discover the forms have issues here and there - what does Chebukati do? Ask the RO to varify or alter? If he declares a whole constitutuency election invalid because the form has issues - what is implication on that ? Isn't that court business.
But declaration of results are not final.Kadame,He has the DUTY to verify. The point if these laws was to ensure any manipulation at any stage, polling to constituency to NTC, would be known. It was meant to discourage any temptations to change the forms. Mwilu said today it is meant to ensure that it is the exact same form that was transmitted at the polling that ends up at the NTC. Its alk designed with our election history in mind.Ok, they can do everything but vary.He says he cant ammend. Not that he cant verify. Those laws were enacted to discourage any change/manipulation of forms at any stage of transmission.vooke, Mwilu says it was part of verification: meant to ensure identical results throughout transmissions. Its meant to catch manipulators.But Kiai case says the chairperson can’t even fantasize verification nor can he amend,vary,correct.... UNLIKE previously where they needed to verify. In fact the case was premised on this
What exactly is he ‘verifying’?
Means regardless of any error of any magnitude they run into during the verification,they will still be guided by 34B.
So verification does not affect the declaration in any way. What’s the purpose of the exercise?
Verification WITHOUT variation or amendment is plain useless, or I’m not seeing its point.
With or without verification,errors in form 34B will not stop declaration of results
Yep! Dont see what would prevent Chebu from seeking an order for the ammendment of 34 Bs found to be manifestly erroneous. But to get such an order, he would have checked all 34 As againt 34 Bs and ascertsined exactlt how 34 B is erroneous, and this not in the back room of his office.After verification what happens - if you discover the forms have issues here and there - what does Chebukati do? Ask the RO to varify or alter? If he declares a whole constitutuency election invalid because the form has issues - what is implication on that ? Isn't that court business.
I think he is stuck with it. He can make notes about it. Or even ignore it, if it is no impact on the outcome. If there is an impact, he can point it out and make life easy for any party that wants to challenge. He could even challenge it himself in court.
You’re proposing IEBC sues itself over its own errors or invites affected parties to file petitions against itself?After verification what happens - if you discover the forms have issues here and there - what does Chebukati do? Ask the RO to varify or alter? If he declares a whole constitutuency election invalid because the form has issues - what is implication on that ? Isn't that court business.
I think he is stuck with it. He can make notes about it. Or even ignore it, if it is no impact on the outcome. If there is an impact, he can point it out and make life easy for any party that wants to challenge. He could even challenge it himself in court.
What do you mean? Can Chebukati declare results and then change his mind?But declaration of results are not final.Kadame,He has the DUTY to verify. The point if these laws was to ensure any manipulation at any stage, polling to constituency to NTC, would be known. It was meant to discourage any temptations to change the forms. Mwilu said today it is meant to ensure that it is the exact same form that was transmitted at the polling that ends up at the NTC. Its alk designed with our election history in mind.Ok, they can do everything but vary.He says he cant ammend. Not that he cant verify. Those laws were enacted to discourage any change/manipulation of forms at any stage of transmission.vooke, Mwilu says it was part of verification: meant to ensure identical results throughout transmissions. Its meant to catch manipulators.But Kiai case says the chairperson can’t even fantasize verification nor can he amend,vary,correct.... UNLIKE previously where they needed to verify. In fact the case was premised on this
What exactly is he ‘verifying’?
Means regardless of any error of any magnitude they run into during the verification,they will still be guided by 34B.
So verification does not affect the declaration in any way. What’s the purpose of the exercise?
Verification WITHOUT variation or amendment is plain useless, or I’m not seeing its point.
With or without verification,errors in form 34B will not stop declaration of results
I think its brilliant actually. Chebukati cant be tempted to massage them at NTC and the R.O. knowing the 34 A has also gone to NTC cant either. Finally, the physical forms finally arrives to ensure even further that all the points (KIEMS, constituency results and NTC and paper form) are identical. No monkeying around.It serves the purpose whether the forms are ‘verified’ or not. Receiving (and sharing them in the portal )them suffices. The whole country will be staring at these errors and everyone is helpless against them till the results are declared to open petition floodgates. Make any sense?Termie,
If the note is not necessary since it can only be challenged in court, why is it part of his responsibility to receive all these before declaration seeing the declaration is not in any way affected by the forms 34As?
For the same reason, we as Kenyans need to be able to access them on the portal. It's a redundancy. A redundancy that makes it just that little bit harder for someone to cheat.
This only works of course if IEBC follow this law/system. :) Thats why Mwilu and company refuse to compromise on this duty. Once you decide P.O., R.O. or Chebu can ignore bits they dont like, like Kiems, verification etc, the whole point of this elaborate systems of checks fails. They are all meant to me checking and re-checking each other and this is supposed to completely discourage/catch manipulators.
Sawa. To each their own. Verifying means he must have all forms and check them against R.O. results. All variations will be noted before a court. This discourages R.O. games as he knows he will still be checked. Chebu is prevented from varying so that he doesnt attempt to screw with the results and make everything artificially match at NTC. I think it is perfect for the thieving Kenya negro.I can’t see how any of what you said keeps ROs in check.
Nope! IEBC has a right to approach courts on orders it needs. It becomes suing IEBC when it declares results without performing all the required tasks in the right order first.You’re proposing IEBC sues itself over its own errors or invites affected parties to file petitions against itself?After verification what happens - if you discover the forms have issues here and there - what does Chebukati do? Ask the RO to varify or alter? If he declares a whole constitutuency election invalid because the form has issues - what is implication on that ? Isn't that court business.
I think he is stuck with it. He can make notes about it. Or even ignore it, if it is no impact on the outcome. If there is an impact, he can point it out and make life easy for any party that wants to challenge. He could even challenge it himself in court.
Of course. THAT is what is called understable human error. Not simply ignoring the law and doing what you want.I think its brilliant actually. Chebukati cant be tempted to massage them at NTC and the R.O. knowing the 34 A has also gone to NTC cant either. Finally, the physical forms finally arrives to ensure even further that all the points (KIEMS, constituency results and NTC and paper form) are identical. No monkeying around.It serves the purpose whether the forms are ‘verified’ or not. Receiving (and sharing them in the portal )them suffices. The whole country will be staring at these errors and everyone is helpless against them till the results are declared to open petition floodgates. Make any sense?Termie,
If the note is not necessary since it can only be challenged in court, why is it part of his responsibility to receive all these before declaration seeing the declaration is not in any way affected by the forms 34As?
For the same reason, we as Kenyans need to be able to access them on the portal. It's a redundancy. A redundancy that makes it just that little bit harder for someone to cheat.
This only works of course if IEBC follow this law/system. :) Thats why Mwilu and company refuse to compromise on this duty. Once you decide P.O., R.O. or Chebu can ignore bits they dont like, like Kiems, verification etc, the whole point of this elaborate systems of checks fails. They are all meant to me checking and re-checking each other and this is supposed to completely discourage/catch manipulators.
That's basically the spirit. Verifying simply means he has checked to see if they are true or not. He can then make notes or ignore it, if it changes nothing. If he does not see the 34A, he can raise the alarm. That said, I don't think any reasonable court would hold it against him if he were to announce the result with a single or even a few missing 34As. But IEBC has to make good faith efforts to adhere to the checks and balances of these redundancies.
Sawa. To each their own. Verifying means he must have all forms and check them against R.O. results. All variations will be noted before a court. This discourages R.O. games as he knows he will still be checked. Chebu is prevented from varying so that he doesnt attempt to screw with the results and make everything artificially match at NTC. I think it is perfect for the thieving Kenya negro.I can’t see how any of what you said keeps ROs in check.
That's basically the spirit. Verifying simply means he has checked to see if they are true or not. He can then make notes or ignore it, if it changes nothing. If he does not see the 34A, he can raise the alarm. That said, I don't think any reasonable court would hold it against him if he were to announce the result with a single or even a few missing 34As. But IEBC has to make good faith efforts to adhere to the checks and balances of these redundancies.Bear in mind verification goes beyond arithmetical errors. But sticking with that. Supposing the total sum of errors means no candidate meets the constitutional threshold yet forms 34B suggests one does. The chairperson declares one as the outright winner and then immediately challenges its own declaration in court. Nonsensical.
Last attempt then Im done. If the R.O. is the final and no one else checks to ensure he has not manipulated anything, he can do what he wants. The fact the p.o sends to him and ntc simultaneously is so that he doesnt change anything. This is all "ABUDAS of caution" to make sure everyone just transmits and counts without changing anything knowing other people are doing the same.Sawa. To each their own. Verifying means he must have all forms and check them against R.O. results. All variations will be noted before a court. This discourages R.O. games as he knows he will still be checked. Chebu is prevented from varying so that he doesnt attempt to screw with the results and make everything artificially match at NTC. I think it is perfect for the thieving Kenya negro.I can’t see how any of what you said keeps ROs in check.
That's basically the spirit. Verifying simply means he has checked to see if they are true or not. He can then make notes or ignore it, if it changes nothing. If he does not see the 34A, he can raise the alarm. That said, I don't think any reasonable court would hold it against him if he were to announce the result with a single or even a few missing 34As. But IEBC has to make good faith efforts to adhere to the checks and balances of these redundancies.Bear in mind verification goes beyond arithmetical errors. But sticking with that. Supposing the total sum of errors means no candidate meets the constitutional threshold yet forms 34B suggests one does. The chairperson declares one as the outright winner and then immediately challenges its own declaration in court. Nonsensical.
Next, what happens when the chairperson receives forms 34B minus a significant number of 34As. Should he wait till he has all the forms or proceed with the 34B as it is? He has 7 days and the deadline is approaching. What to do?
Why do you think the chairman is prevented from approaching the court until/unless he does something worth challenging in court?That's basically the spirit. Verifying simply means he has checked to see if they are true or not. He can then make notes or ignore it, if it changes nothing. If he does not see the 34A, he can raise the alarm. That said, I don't think any reasonable court would hold it against him if he were to announce the result with a single or even a few missing 34As. But IEBC has to make good faith efforts to adhere to the checks and balances of these redundancies.Bear in mind verification goes beyond arithmetical errors. But sticking with that. Supposing the total sum of errors means no candidate meets the constitutional threshold yet forms 34B suggests one does. The chairperson declares one as the outright winner and then immediately challenges its own declaration in court. Nonsensical.
Next, what happens when the chairperson receives forms 34B minus a significant number of 34As. Should he wait till he has all the forms or proceed with the 34B as it is? He has 7 days and the deadline is approaching. What to do?
Why do you think I think he is?Why do you think the chairman is prevented from approaching the court until/unless he does something worth challenging in court?That's basically the spirit. Verifying simply means he has checked to see if they are true or not. He can then make notes or ignore it, if it changes nothing. If he does not see the 34A, he can raise the alarm. That said, I don't think any reasonable court would hold it against him if he were to announce the result with a single or even a few missing 34As. But IEBC has to make good faith efforts to adhere to the checks and balances of these redundancies.Bear in mind verification goes beyond arithmetical errors. But sticking with that. Supposing the total sum of errors means no candidate meets the constitutional threshold yet forms 34B suggests one does. The chairperson declares one as the outright winner and then immediately challenges its own declaration in court. Nonsensical.
Next, what happens when the chairperson receives forms 34B minus a significant number of 34As. Should he wait till he has all the forms or proceed with the 34B as it is? He has 7 days and the deadline is approaching. What to do?
I mean, as what is going on right now at the SCOK clearly demonstrates, that the declaration is not final. So yes, the verification exercises if followed and all its findings, has lots if uses elsewhere.What do you mean? Can Chebukati declare results and then change his mind?But declaration of results are not final.Kadame,He has the DUTY to verify. The point if these laws was to ensure any manipulation at any stage, polling to constituency to NTC, would be known. It was meant to discourage any temptations to change the forms. Mwilu said today it is meant to ensure that it is the exact same form that was transmitted at the polling that ends up at the NTC. Its alk designed with our election history in mind.Ok, they can do everything but vary.He says he cant ammend. Not that he cant verify. Those laws were enacted to discourage any change/manipulation of forms at any stage of transmission.vooke, Mwilu says it was part of verification: meant to ensure identical results throughout transmissions. Its meant to catch manipulators.But Kiai case says the chairperson can’t even fantasize verification nor can he amend,vary,correct.... UNLIKE previously where they needed to verify. In fact the case was premised on this
What exactly is he ‘verifying’?
Means regardless of any error of any magnitude they run into during the verification,they will still be guided by 34B.
So verification does not affect the declaration in any way. What’s the purpose of the exercise?
Verification WITHOUT variation or amendment is plain useless, or I’m not seeing its point.
With or without verification,errors in form 34B will not stop declaration of results
All cool facts/pointsLast attempt then Im done. If the R.O. is the final and no one else checks to ensure he has not manipulated anything, he can do what he wants. The fact the p.o sends to him and ntc simultaneously is so that he doesnt change anything. This is all "ABUDAS of caution" to make sure everyone just transmits and counts without changing anything knowing other people are doing the same.Sawa. To each their own. Verifying means he must have all forms and check them against R.O. results. All variations will be noted before a court. This discourages R.O. games as he knows he will still be checked. Chebu is prevented from varying so that he doesnt attempt to screw with the results and make everything artificially match at NTC. I think it is perfect for the thieving Kenya negro.I can’t see how any of what you said keeps ROs in check.
You. Just reading what you're saying: Chebu suing himself, cant do anything etc. It all indicates you think IEBC can only go to court as a party accused of breaching the law, but never as a party who has done due diligence and wishes the court to provide orders enabling the accurate announcement of resultsWhy do you think I think he is?Why do you think the chairman is prevented from approaching the court until/unless he does something worth challenging in court?That's basically the spirit. Verifying simply means he has checked to see if they are true or not. He can then make notes or ignore it, if it changes nothing. If he does not see the 34A, he can raise the alarm. That said, I don't think any reasonable court would hold it against him if he were to announce the result with a single or even a few missing 34As. But IEBC has to make good faith efforts to adhere to the checks and balances of these redundancies.Bear in mind verification goes beyond arithmetical errors. But sticking with that. Supposing the total sum of errors means no candidate meets the constitutional threshold yet forms 34B suggests one does. The chairperson declares one as the outright winner and then immediately challenges its own declaration in court. Nonsensical.
Next, what happens when the chairperson receives forms 34B minus a significant number of 34As. Should he wait till he has all the forms or proceed with the 34B as it is? He has 7 days and the deadline is approaching. What to do?
Elsewhere such as IEBC filing a petition against itself in the wake of errors detected during ‘verification’ okI mean, as what is going on right now at the SCOK clearly demonstrates, that the declaration is not final. So yes, the verification exercises if followed and all its findings, has lots if uses elsewhere.What do you mean? Can Chebukati declare results and then change his mind?But declaration of results are not final.Kadame,He has the DUTY to verify. The point if these laws was to ensure any manipulation at any stage, polling to constituency to NTC, would be known. It was meant to discourage any temptations to change the forms. Mwilu said today it is meant to ensure that it is the exact same form that was transmitted at the polling that ends up at the NTC. Its alk designed with our election history in mind.Ok, they can do everything but vary.He says he cant ammend. Not that he cant verify. Those laws were enacted to discourage any change/manipulation of forms at any stage of transmission.vooke, Mwilu says it was part of verification: meant to ensure identical results throughout transmissions. Its meant to catch manipulators.But Kiai case says the chairperson can’t even fantasize verification nor can he amend,vary,correct.... UNLIKE previously where they needed to verify. In fact the case was premised on this
What exactly is he ‘verifying’?
Means regardless of any error of any magnitude they run into during the verification,they will still be guided by 34B.
So verification does not affect the declaration in any way. What’s the purpose of the exercise?
Verification WITHOUT variation or amendment is plain useless, or I’m not seeing its point.
With or without verification,errors in form 34B will not stop declaration of results
Preposterous that an election ends with the electoral body suing itself all in under 7 days to correct its own errors.You. Just reading what you're saying: Chebu suing himself, cant do anything etc. It all indicates you think IEBC can only go to court as a party accused of breaching the law, but never as a party who has done due diligence and wishes the court to provide orders enabling the accurate announcement of resultsWhy do you think I think he is?Why do you think the chairman is prevented from approaching the court until/unless he does something worth challenging in court?That's basically the spirit. Verifying simply means he has checked to see if they are true or not. He can then make notes or ignore it, if it changes nothing. If he does not see the 34A, he can raise the alarm. That said, I don't think any reasonable court would hold it against him if he were to announce the result with a single or even a few missing 34As. But IEBC has to make good faith efforts to adhere to the checks and balances of these redundancies.Bear in mind verification goes beyond arithmetical errors. But sticking with that. Supposing the total sum of errors means no candidate meets the constitutional threshold yet forms 34B suggests one does. The chairperson declares one as the outright winner and then immediately challenges its own declaration in court. Nonsensical.
Next, what happens when the chairperson receives forms 34B minus a significant number of 34As. Should he wait till he has all the forms or proceed with the 34B as it is? He has 7 days and the deadline is approaching. What to do?
All cool facts/pointsLast attempt then Im done. If the R.O. is the final and no one else checks to ensure he has not manipulated anything, he can do what he wants. The fact the p.o sends to him and ntc simultaneously is so that he doesnt change anything. This is all "ABUDAS of caution" to make sure everyone just transmits and counts without changing anything knowing other people are doing the same.Sawa. To each their own. Verifying means he must have all forms and check them against R.O. results. All variations will be noted before a court. This discourages R.O. games as he knows he will still be checked. Chebu is prevented from varying so that he doesnt attempt to screw with the results and make everything artificially match at NTC. I think it is perfect for the thieving Kenya negro.I can’t see how any of what you said keeps ROs in check.
Whther his job is ‘verified’ or not,it can only be challenged in court. How does this ‘verification’ make him more cautious?
That's a very good point. If everything has been verified at every level, it makes petitions less likely where no monkey business is found and easily dispensible where it goes ahead and where monkey business has happened, it exposes it and makes the invalidation/other cure easier and even identifying persons for prosecution.All cool facts/pointsLast attempt then Im done. If the R.O. is the final and no one else checks to ensure he has not manipulated anything, he can do what he wants. The fact the p.o sends to him and ntc simultaneously is so that he doesnt change anything. This is all "ABUDAS of caution" to make sure everyone just transmits and counts without changing anything knowing other people are doing the same.Sawa. To each their own. Verifying means he must have all forms and check them against R.O. results. All variations will be noted before a court. This discourages R.O. games as he knows he will still be checked. Chebu is prevented from varying so that he doesnt attempt to screw with the results and make everything artificially match at NTC. I think it is perfect for the thieving Kenya negro.I can’t see how any of what you said keeps ROs in check.
Whther his job is ‘verified’ or not,it can only be challenged in court. How does this ‘verification’ make him more cautious?
For one, it could make a basis of his own petition against the declaration in a court. If another party challenges IEBC, he could use the notes he made about it in his defense; ideally he should make the application in court himself if it the declaration is obviously wrong - relying on said verification. Kadame mentions SCOK as one such arena where such verification can make life easy. It can also discourage frivolous petitions.
It cannot be denied that the Chairperson of the appellant has a significant constitutional role under Sub- Article (10) of Article 138 as the authority with the ultimate mandate of making the declaration that brings to finality the presidential election process. Of course before he makes that declaration his role is to accurately tally all the results exactly as received from the 290 returning officers country-wide, without adding, subtracting, multiplying or dividing any number contained in the two forms from the constituency tallying centre. If any verification or confirmation is anticipated, it has to relate only to confirmation and verification that the candidate to be declared elected president has met the threshold set under Article 138(4), by receiving more than half of all the votes cast in that election; and at least twenty- five per cent of the votes cast in each of more than half of the counties.
The only other verification or confirmation that we can envisage and is in fact conceded by the appellant itself in paragraphs 53-57 of the submissions relate to accountability of the ballot. For instance, the number of ballot papers issued out to the constituencies, the number of ballot papers issued to and correctly used by voters, the number of spoilt ballot papers and the number of ballot papers remaining unused, which process is verified against Form 34. Any changes to what was counted, confirmed and verified at the constituency level before transmission is manifestly outside his powers and competence. It could well be tantamount to a serious assault on the will of the people of Kenya and an impermissible breach of the Constitution.
[That's a very good point. If everything has been verified at every level, it makes petitions less likely where no monkey business is found and easily dispensible where it goes ahead and where monkey business has happened, it exposes it and makes the invalidation/other cure easier and even identifying persons for prosecution.
Supreme Court now says IEBC chairman must verify 40K forms 34A but after verifying should not alter.IMPOSSIBLE & RIDICULOUS @ahmednasirlaw
— KIPCHUMBA MURKOMEN, E.G.H (@kipmurkomen) September 20, 2017
A returning officer who 'verifies' and makes 'public note' of his subject yet he is supposed to be accurate is BS
Hoping IEBC follows through on this.
It can be challenged for its inconsistency.A returning officer who 'verifies' and makes 'public note' of his subject yet he is supposed to be accurate is BS
Hoping IEBC follows through on this.
Don't see how they can follow through on anything. If you've had a chance to read the judgment, the section on this issue is settled now. The court agreed with the COA and HC judgments and restated that the statutory duties for verification on all polling stations forms remain in full force. There's no way the IEBC can challenge this now IMO. It's done and now there's a SCOK judgment on the same issue.
The court already determined the claim of inconsistency. Just read the judgment. It heard it and dismissed it and restated the right position. "Challenge" it at this point is just a rejection of a determination settled yesterday.It can be challenged for its inconsistency.A returning officer who 'verifies' and makes 'public note' of his subject yet he is supposed to be accurate is BS
Hoping IEBC follows through on this.
Don't see how they can follow through on anything. If you've had a chance to read the judgment, the section on this issue is settled now. The court agreed with the COA and HC judgments and restated that the statutory duties for verification on all polling stations forms remain in full force. There's no way the IEBC can challenge this now IMO. It's done and now there's a SCOK judgment on the same issue.
Kiai case banned any form of verification, SCOK claims the judgement did not
SCOK was way too casual on Kiai case
Then again, definition of exactly what 'verification' entails seeing it excludes correcting any errors
And finally, the relevance of such an impotent exercise
The court already determined the claim of inconsistency. Just read the judgment. It heard it and dismissed it and restated the right position. "Challenge" it at this point is just a rejection of a determination settled yesterday.I have read it over and over, all the 20 instances the decision is referenced.
And what would be the impossibility of compliance involved here? Is IEBC claiming it lacks capacity to verify at all levels as ordered or is it refusung to do so because it deems the exercise pointless? It doesnt get to set aside duties it deems pointless. It just has to do what the law requires it to do at all stages and these have been made clear in the statutes and judgments.
Where are they saying 34 Bs are provisional?Sorry I had to edit my post.
But do they really say that? That 34 C is not generated from 34 B?Where are they saying 34 Bs are provisional?Sorry I had to edit my post.
Isn’t it common sense that if 34C is generated from 34A that any intermediary is irrelevant?
Look at the judgement.But do they really say that? That 34 C is not generated from 34 B?Where are they saying 34 Bs are provisional?Sorry I had to edit my post.
Isn’t it common sense that if 34C is generated from 34A that any intermediary is irrelevant?
IEBC must verify every single result it receives at all stages, including NTC.
They are saying 34 As are not "irrelevant". They are not saying that 34 Bs thereby are. In other words, all of them matter. IEBC must verify every single result it receives at all stages, including NTC.According to SCOK,IEBC failed on two points
Who is IEBC. Court of Appeal said IEBC is not Chebukati. The POS is IEBC. The RO is IEBC. If the POS have verified - IEBC has verified. If the RO has verified - IEBC has verified. Now SCOK are saying Chebukati is IEBC and now need to verify results from IEBC Staff :) but cannot alter or vary them?R.O. is IEBC, so is Chebukati. Why do you feel only one can act for IEBC?IEBC must verify every single result it receives at all stages, including NTC.
I think the problem you have with these decisions is that you assume the IEBC must be able to reconcile discrepancies between finalized 34As and Bs. You believe this is the point of the laws. The point Termi and I were making to you, and that the SCOK now says, is that there is another point to these laws: insurance. If you keep ignoring the function of discouraging alteration of forms at various stages, you will not be able to reconcile them. But as it stands, Chebukati and R.O. both have a duty to verify the forms they receive even if they can't alter then. They have a duty to make sure the forms are the same throughout. Once this is discovered, the Chair makes it very clear what discrepancies there are if any. If this is done and is public then the right rectification process can follow, even if it is the courts.They are saying 34 As are not "irrelevant". They are not saying that 34 Bs thereby are. In other words, all of them matter. IEBC must verify every single result it receives at all stages, including NTC.According to SCOK,IEBC failed on two points
1. Declaring without sighting all 34As
2. Declaring without verifying
Please note Kiai case forbids ANY form of verification of forms 34B,and it is on this basis that the chairperson dispensed with the need to sight all forms 34A
The other point is,to reasonably use both,one of them can’t be final in the sense that it can’t be amended.
Finally, IEBC needs guidance on how to reconcile discrepancies between these forms.
According to SCOK,IEBC failed on two points
1. Declaring without sighting all 34As
2. Declaring without verifying
Please note Kiai case forbids ANY form of verification of forms 34B,and it is on this basis that the chairperson dispensed with the need to sight all forms 34A
The other point is,to reasonably use both,one of them can’t be final in the sense that it can’t be amended.
Finally, IEBC needs guidance on how to reconcile discrepancies between these forms.
Every step along the way discourages tinkering with the results.I think the problem you have with these decisions is that you assume the IEBC must be able to reconcile discrepancies between finalized 34As and Bs. You believe this is the point of the laws. The point Termi and I were making to you, and that the SCOK now says, is that there is another point to these laws: insurance. If you keep ignoring the function of discouraging alteration of forms at various stages, you will not be able to reconcile them. But as it stands, Chebukati and R.O. both have a duty to verify the forms they receive even if they can't alter then. They have a duty to make sure the forms are the same throughout. Once this is discovered, the Chair makes it very clear what discrepancies there are if any. If this is done and is public then the right rectification process can follow, even if it is the courts.They are saying 34 As are not "irrelevant". They are not saying that 34 Bs thereby are. In other words, all of them matter. IEBC must verify every single result it receives at all stages, including NTC.According to SCOK,IEBC failed on two points
1. Declaring without sighting all 34As
2. Declaring without verifying
Please note Kiai case forbids ANY form of verification of forms 34B,and it is on this basis that the chairperson dispensed with the need to sight all forms 34A
The other point is,to reasonably use both,one of them can’t be final in the sense that it can’t be amended.
Finally, IEBC needs guidance on how to reconcile discrepancies between these forms.
It cannot be denied that the Chairperson of the appellant has a significant constitutional role under Sub- Article (10) of Article 138 as the authority with the ultimate mandate of making the declaration that brings to finality the presidential election process. Of course before he makes that declaration his role is to accurately tally all the results exactly as received from the 290 returning officers country-wide, without adding, subtracting, multiplying or dividing any number contained in the two forms from the constituency tallying centre. If any verification or confirmation is anticipated, it has to relate only to confirmation and verification that the candidate to be declared elected president has met the threshold set under Article 138(4), by receiving more than half of all the votes cast in that election; and at least twenty- five per cent of the votes cast in each of more than half of the counties.
The only other verification or confirmation that we can envisage and is in fact conceded by the appellant itself in paragraphs 53-57 of the submissions relate to accountability of the ballot. For instance, the number of ballot papers issued out to the constituencies, the number of ballot papers issued to and correctly used by voters, the number of spoilt ballot papers and the number of ballot papers remaining unused, which process is verified against Form 34. Any changes to what was counted, confirmed and verified at the constituency level before transmission is manifestly outside his powers and competence. It could well be tantamount to a serious assault on the will of the people of Kenya and an impermissible breach of the Constitution.
Kiai case basically called bullshiet the idea that results already verified by PO,RO needed further verification at Bomas
SCOK is saying, nonsense, chairperson must verify,and that failure to do so is infraction of some constitutional principle yet the verifier can’t change nothing :o
Pundito and Kadame,
Tell me if an appellate court tells you the highlighted what you’re supposed to do with a form 34B
The problem with you is you have never read Kiai. If you did, you’d know the legal definition/implication of verification,as well as its close cousinsKiai case basically called bullshiet the idea that results already verified by PO,RO needed further verification at Bomas
SCOK is saying, nonsense, chairperson must verify,and that failure to do so is infraction of some constitutional principle yet the verifier can’t change nothing :o
Verification literally does not imply ability to change. I think that is where you are having trouble. In this case it simply allows the chairman to vouch for the result. If it does not, he can state that fact, as Mwilu said.
It's a bit like counting your change from a vending machine even if you wont do nothing about it. Except the law requires him to know whether the declaration reflects the will of the peepoes(to paraphrase Ojwang). It's an accountability device that can be used elsewhere. It would be retrogressive to change it.
Moving on to the second ground, the appellant (IEBC) submitted that Article 138 (3) (c) requires it to verify the count before declaring the result of the presidential election and for that purpose its chairperson is required to tally and verify the count from all polling stations before declaring the result. In its view, the legal definition of the phrase “to verify” is “to prove to be true; to confirm or establish the truth or to authenticate” and not to alter and/or vary results as was interpreted by the High Court. It was the appellant’s contention that ballot papers are election materials, which must be accounted for and that the confirmation, verification and collation carried out by its chairperson is a control measure to ensure that what is received from the returning officer at the constituency tallying centre as provided under Article 86(b) is consistent with the election materials that were issued for purposes of conducting the election. According to the appellant therefore, the collation, tallying, verification and confirmation of presidential results is a purely mathematical exercise for the purpose of consolidating the results received from each returning officer and that it is on that basis the results are referred to as provisional.
It is as hypocritical as it is incongruous for the appellant to doubt the competency, proficiency and honesty of its own staff as the reason for the need to “verify” the results to ensure they are not tampered with. The appellant has the opportunity, indeed a duty, to vet all its prospective employees to ensure they pass the integrity test before engaging them.
The problem with you is you have never read Kiai. If you did, you’d know the legal definition/implication of verification,as well as its close cousinsKiai case basically called bullshiet the idea that results already verified by PO,RO needed further verification at Bomas
SCOK is saying, nonsense, chairperson must verify,and that failure to do so is infraction of some constitutional principle yet the verifier can’t change nothing :o
Verification literally does not imply ability to change. I think that is where you are having trouble. In this case it simply allows the chairman to vouch for the result. If it does not, he can state that fact, as Mwilu said.
It's a bit like counting your change from a vending machine even if you wont do nothing about it. Except the law requires him to know whether the declaration reflects the will of the peepoes(to paraphrase Ojwang). It's an accountability device that can be used elsewhere. It would be retrogressive to change it.
IEBC felt just like you are about verificationQuoteMoving on to the second ground, the appellant (IEBC) submitted that Article 138 (3) (c) requires it to verify the count before declaring the result of the presidential election and for that purpose its chairperson is required to tally and verify the count from all polling stations before declaring the result. In its view, the legal definition of the phrase “to verify” is “to prove to be true; to confirm or establish the truth or to authenticate” and not to alter and/or vary results as was interpreted by the High Court. It was the appellant’s contention that ballot papers are election materials, which must be accounted for and that the confirmation, verification and collation carried out by its chairperson is a control measure to ensure that what is received from the returning officer at the constituency tallying centre as provided under Article 86(b) is consistent with the election materials that were issued for purposes of conducting the election. According to the appellant therefore, the collation, tallying, verification and confirmation of presidential results is a purely mathematical exercise for the purpose of consolidating the results received from each returning officer and that it is on that basis the results are referred to as provisional.
But the judges felt otherwise;QuoteIt is as hypocritical as it is incongruous for the appellant to doubt the competency, proficiency and honesty of its own staff as the reason for the need to “verify” the results to ensure they are not tampered with. The appellant has the opportunity, indeed a duty, to vet all its prospective employees to ensure they pass the integrity test before engaging them.
I have read Kiai. Thanks for asking.Then act like it
Then act like it
Your own theory of ‘verification’ is in quotation marks,and even that was kicked out.
Chebukati is not an idiot,he followed this judgement to the letter but SCOK mischievously claims there’s nothing stopping him from verification while there were clear orders to that effect
I have read Kiai. Thanks for asking.Then act like it
Your own theory of ‘verification’ is in quotation marks,and even that was kicked out.
Chebukati is not an idiot,he followed this judgement to the letter but SCOK mischievously claims there’s nothing stopping him from verification while there were clear orders to that effect
He did not have all 34As. The judgment did not prevent him from verifying 34As. It pointed out that he cannot vary constituency RO results. It did not take away the requirement to verify Forms 34A.
To what end - what would be the output of the verification of source forms - if form 34B is final? So he can declare the president with a CAVEAT :) That you although you won I am aware after verification that some Form 34As have issues here and there?He did not have all 34As. The judgment did not prevent him from verifying 34As. It pointed out that he cannot vary constituency RO results. It did not take away the requirement to verify Forms 34A.
To what end - what would be the output of the verification of source forms - if form 34B is final? So he can declare the president with a CAVEAT :) That you although you won I am aware after verification that some Form 34As have issues here and there?He did not have all 34As. The judgment did not prevent him from verifying 34As. It pointed out that he cannot vary constituency RO results. It did not take away the requirement to verify Forms 34A.
He did not have all 34As. The judgment did not prevent him from verifying 34As. It pointed out that he cannot vary constituency RO results. It did not take away the requirement to verify Forms 34A.Look at Election Regulation 87(3)(a)-(c)
Section 39(1C) of the Elections Act
“For purposes of a presidential election, the Commission shall-
(a) Electronically transmit, in the prescribed form, the tabulated results of an election for the President from a polling station to the constituency tallying centre and to the national tallying centre;
(b) Tally and verify the results received at the national tallying centre ; and
(c) Publish the polling result forms on an online public portal maintained by the Commission.
vooke,
Scratch everything I said on this thread. I just made some time to recheck the Kiai ruling against Mwilu's interpretation. Boy was I wrong. This Mwilu is a sharp cookie. Everything I have been discussing on this thread is based on the premise 34A->34B->34C. That is wrong. Throw that out.
The actual legal expectation is 34A->34B and 34A->34C. 34As are ending up at both the CTC and NTC. Each uses them to come up with their respective tally for the Presidential election. So you have 1 NTC Presidential result(the one to be declared), and 290 CTC Presidential results.
The chairman can use 34Bs for his own purposes, maybe to catch some errors that he can make note of, per Mwilu. He can say Juja results showed 106% turnout to use a perfectly random example, but he cannot change it. He doesn't need to because he is making his own separate tally from his copy of 34As.
Chebukati is therefore in fact expected to rely on 34A to generate the final 34C. But he did not do this. That level of oversight is inexcusable for an organization funded with millions bristling with attorneys of all stripes. What's the excuse? At least on nipate we can just say we didn't read it and we are not paid to do it.QuoteSection 39(1C) of the Elections Act
“For purposes of a presidential election, the Commission shall-
(a) Electronically transmit, in the prescribed form, the tabulated results of an election for the President from a polling station to the constituency tallying centre and to the national tallying centre;
(b) Tally and verify the results received at the national tallying centre ; and
(c) Publish the polling result forms on an online public portal maintained by the Commission.
Termie,Only part of section 39 was struck out. (2) and (3). (1) was left intact.
It’s good you accepted to brush up your memory of this case.
Now,
Look at the closing statement of the appeal
Ultimately we find no fault in the determination of the High Court that to the extent that section 39(2) and (3) of the Act and regulation 87(2)(c) provide that the results declared by the returning officer are provisional, and to the extent that regulation 83(2) provides that the results of the retuning officer are subject to confirmation by the appellant, these provisions are inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore null and void.
You are quoting the Elections Act correctly but the section was struck out as unconstitutional by Kiai case. They was emphatic that there would be no verification,only tallying of results from the 290 Constituency ROs. According to Kiai case, there can’t be read-only verification which is what IEBC had pleaded.
What you quote was what used to be the case.
Let me help some more.
Originally, all forms 34A and 34B would be physically sent to Bomas and the chairman out of that concoction would declare the winner.
Enter Kiai and he insists that BOTH 34A and 34B are final,not subject to confirmation,not provisional, but they should STILL be sent to Bomas. That’s what led Chebukati to ignore 34As. SCOK says he had a duty to verify 34Bs from 34As, he be like, but 34B is final and can’t be altered,so what’s the point?
Termie,
You are very close to getting it.
The chairman should not be concerned with 34Bs but rather he should focus on 34As and get the job done,right?
Makes tons of sense because results are ONLY verified and varied at the polling station. Any other stage is only tallying.
But there’s the small matter of our katiba.
Section 138 (2)
(2) If two or more candidates for President are nominated, an election shall be held in each constituency.
If you don’t know where Constituency tallying centers came from look no further. Presidential elections takes place in our 290 constituencies, explaining the genesis of the Kiai case which was the finality of Constituency results/34B
The chairperson is very much bound by 34Bs as much as 34A.
If he were to ignore 34Bs and tally Constituency results independently,he may arrive at different figures then what the RO declared.
This explains the dilemma of the chairperson; he receives two sets of results from which he is supposed to declare the president,both of which are final.
Once again,internalize this; chairperson is by the law supposed to aggregate presidential results from 290 constituencies to declare the winner. But he receives two sets of Constituency results; 34Bs and 34As. What should he use?
Yes. But the constitution does not prescribe how the results are tallied. Left without enabling legislation, it does not say where or how the tallying is to be done. Those tallies could even be carried out at NTC or on the moon.
The statute(Election Act) prescribes the manner of how the results are tallied. To me, it simply suggests he has a choice to go with his own 34A tally or the 34Bs. If the differences are minor, this doesn't matter. But he must have both. That is just from looking at the constitution and legislation. I imagine the regulations should crystallize the issue further - but I don't know them.
What is clear is that he cannot change 34Bs.
He has to verify 34B against 34A. See Election Regulation 87(3)(a) (an image of which I just now realize you have included on this thread https://s26.postimg.org/70v8y377d/DC9_B0559-_A05_D-477_A-_B851-_EDEC252_B4948.jpg).Yes. But the constitution does not prescribe how the results are tallied. Left without enabling legislation, it does not say where or how the tallying is to be done. Those tallies could even be carried out at NTC or on the moon.
The statute(Election Act) prescribes the manner of how the results are tallied. To me, it simply suggests he has a choice to go with his own 34A tally or the 34Bs. If the differences are minor, this doesn't matter. But he must have both. That is just from looking at the constitution and legislation. I imagine the regulations should crystallize the issue further - but I don't know them.
What is clear is that he cannot change 34Bs.
Exactly
If you think he is at liberty to work with either, would you fault him for working with 34B and not 34A?
Note that it is equally clear that he can’t alter 34As.
I agree he is required to have both but for purposes of declaration of results,it is not necessary
He has to verify 34B against 34A. See Election Regulation 87(3)(a) (an image of which I just now realize you have included on this thread https://s26.postimg.org/70v8y377d/DC9_B0559-_A05_D-477_A-_B851-_EDEC252_B4948.jpg).Yes. But the constitution does not prescribe how the results are tallied. Left without enabling legislation, it does not say where or how the tallying is to be done. Those tallies could even be carried out at NTC or on the moon.
The statute(Election Act) prescribes the manner of how the results are tallied. To me, it simply suggests he has a choice to go with his own 34A tally or the 34Bs. If the differences are minor, this doesn't matter. But he must have both. That is just from looking at the constitution and legislation. I imagine the regulations should crystallize the issue further - but I don't know them.
What is clear is that he cannot change 34Bs.
Exactly
If you think he is at liberty to work with either, would you fault him for working with 34B and not 34A?
Note that it is equally clear that he can’t alter 34As.
I agree he is required to have both but for purposes of declaration of results,it is not necessary
In order to do this, he must of necessity come up with his own tally from 34As. What he decides to use after satisfying this requirement, is not clear. What is clear is he did not have a substantial number of 34As up to several days after the declaration.
He has to verify 34B against 34A. See Election Regulation 87(3)(a) (an image of which I just now realize you have included on this thread https://s26.postimg.org/70v8y377d/DC9_B0559-_A05_D-477_A-_B851-_EDEC252_B4948.jpg (https://s26.postimg.org/70v8y377d/DC9_B0559-_A05_D-477_A-_B851-_EDEC252_B4948.jpg)).Yes. But the constitution does not prescribe how the results are tallied. Left without enabling legislation, it does not say where or how the tallying is to be done. Those tallies could even be carried out at NTC or on the moon.
The statute(Election Act) prescribes the manner of how the results are tallied. To me, it simply suggests he has a choice to go with his own 34A tally or the 34Bs. If the differences are minor, this doesn't matter. But he must have both. That is just from looking at the constitution and legislation. I imagine the regulations should crystallize the issue further - but I don't know them.
What is clear is that he cannot change 34Bs.
Exactly
If you think he is at liberty to work with either, would you fault him for working with 34B and not 34A?
Note that it is equally clear that he can’t alter 34As.
I agree he is required to have both but for purposes of declaration of results,it is not necessary
In order to do this, he must of necessity come up with his own tally from 34As. What he decides to use after satisfying this requirement, is not clear. What is clear is he did not have a substantial number of 34As up to several days after the declaration.
Kiai case held these regulations as mischief and meant to circumvent the very issue IEBC was appealing;finality of Constituency results. I quoted the relevant portion of the judgement.
It was not affected because it was introduced after the high court decision,and it was not the subject of the Appeal.He has to verify 34B against 34A. See Election Regulation 87(3)(a) (an image of which I just now realize you have included on this thread https://s26.postimg.org/70v8y377d/DC9_B0559-_A05_D-477_A-_B851-_EDEC252_B4948.jpg (https://s26.postimg.org/70v8y377d/DC9_B0559-_A05_D-477_A-_B851-_EDEC252_B4948.jpg)).Yes. But the constitution does not prescribe how the results are tallied. Left without enabling legislation, it does not say where or how the tallying is to be done. Those tallies could even be carried out at NTC or on the moon.
The statute(Election Act) prescribes the manner of how the results are tallied. To me, it simply suggests he has a choice to go with his own 34A tally or the 34Bs. If the differences are minor, this doesn't matter. But he must have both. That is just from looking at the constitution and legislation. I imagine the regulations should crystallize the issue further - but I don't know them.
What is clear is that he cannot change 34Bs.
Exactly
If you think he is at liberty to work with either, would you fault him for working with 34B and not 34A?
Note that it is equally clear that he can’t alter 34As.
I agree he is required to have both but for purposes of declaration of results,it is not necessary
In order to do this, he must of necessity come up with his own tally from 34As. What he decides to use after satisfying this requirement, is not clear. What is clear is he did not have a substantial number of 34As up to several days after the declaration.
Kiai case held these regulations as mischief and meant to circumvent the very issue IEBC was appealing;finality of Constituency results. I quoted the relevant portion of the judgement.
Regulations 83 (2), 84 (1) and 87 (2) were declared unconstitutional. Regulation 87 (3) was not affected.
We now turn our attention to amendments to the Regulations, which we alluded to earlier. It will be recalled that the High Court annulled Section 39(2) and (3) of the Act and regulations 83(2) and 87(2)(c) on 7th April, 2017. One would have expected the concerned institutions, including the appellant, to either comply with the determination of the court or if aggrieved, to challenge it in this Court as the appellant did within two weeks on 24th April 2017. Instead, 14 days following the delivery of the judgment impugned in this appeal, the appellant issued a gazette supplement, being Legal Notice No. 72 of 21st April, 2017, making drastic amendments to the Elections (General) Regulations 2012, whose effect was clearly to render impotent and circumvent the declaration by the High Court of the inconsistency with the Constitution of section 39(2) and (3) of the Act and regulations 83(2) and 87(2)(c). For instance, Form 34 which was headed
“DECLARATION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS AT A POLLING STATION” has been replaced by two forms, Form 34A and 34B, the former now headed “PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS AT THE POLLING STATION” and the latter “COLLATION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS AT THE CONSTITUENCY TALLYING CENTRE”. Form 34C is the one to be used in place of Form 37 for the final declaration of the result of election of the President at the national tallying centre. The new regulation 87 specifies that upon receipt of Form 34A from the constituency returning officers the Chairperson of the appellant shall “verify the results against Forms 34A and 34B received from the constituency returning officer at the national tallying centre”.
The controversial regulations 83(2) and 87(2) were not affected by the amendments, and the object is not difficult to see. The High Court having found those regulations to be inconsistent with the Constitution, it was in bad faith for the appellant to re-enact them while pursuing this appeal.
It was not affected because it was introduced after the high court decision,and it was not the subject of the Appeal.He has to verify 34B against 34A. See Election Regulation 87(3)(a) (an image of which I just now realize you have included on this thread https://s26.postimg.org/70v8y377d/DC9_B0559-_A05_D-477_A-_B851-_EDEC252_B4948.jpg (https://s26.postimg.org/70v8y377d/DC9_B0559-_A05_D-477_A-_B851-_EDEC252_B4948.jpg)).
In order to do this, he must of necessity come up with his own tally from 34As. What he decides to use after satisfying this requirement, is not clear. What is clear is he did not have a substantial number of 34As up to several days after the declaration.
Kiai case held these regulations as mischief and meant to circumvent the very issue IEBC was appealing;finality of Constituency results. I quoted the relevant portion of the judgement.
Regulations 83 (2), 84 (1) and 87 (2) were declared unconstitutional. Regulation 87 (3) was not affected.
That the Judges read mischief and circumvention of the High Court decision which they upheld is all you need to know it is defective.QuoteWe now turn our attention to amendments to the Regulations, which we alluded to earlier. It will be recalled that the High Court annulled Section 39(2) and (3) of the Act and regulations 83(2) and 87(2)(c) on 7th April, 2017. One would have expected the concerned institutions, including the appellant, to either comply with the determination of the court or if aggrieved, to challenge it in this Court as the appellant did within two weeks on 24th April 2017. Instead, 14 days following the delivery of the judgment impugned in this appeal, the appellant issued a gazette supplement, being Legal Notice No. 72 of 21st April, 2017, making drastic amendments to the Elections (General) Regulations 2012, whose effect was clearly to render impotent and circumvent the declaration by the High Court of the inconsistency with the Constitution of section 39(2) and (3) of the Act and regulations 83(2) and 87(2)(c). For instance, Form 34 which was headed
“DECLARATION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS AT A POLLING STATION” has been replaced by two forms, Form 34A and 34B, the former now headed “PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS AT THE POLLING STATION” and the latter “COLLATION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS AT THE CONSTITUENCY TALLYING CENTRE”. Form 34C is the one to be used in place of Form 37 for the final declaration of the result of election of the President at the national tallying centre. The new regulation 87 specifies that upon receipt of Form 34A from the constituency returning officers the Chairperson of the appellant shall “verify the results against Forms 34A and 34B received from the constituency returning officer at the national tallying centre”.
The controversial regulations 83(2) and 87(2) were not affected by the amendments, and the object is not difficult to see. The High Court having found those regulations to be inconsistent with the Constitution, it was in bad faith for the appellant to re-enact them while pursuing this appeal.
Chairperson is told not to verify and all sections to do with verification are expunged, he obeys and files an appeal while behind the court’s back he sneaks them back in in the regulations. He’s called out.
Kiai case robbed chairperson of all verification powers while at the same time cursing him with two sets of final results which may have discrepancies,and left him to figure out what to do.
Regulation 87 (4) (a)
Upon receipt of a certificate under subregulation (1), the Chairperson of the Commission shall—
(a) in the case of a presidential election, hold the certificate until the results of that election in every county have been received and thereafter publish a notice in the Gazette within seven days declaring the person who has received the greatest number of votes in the election, and has complied with the provisions of Article 138(4)(a) and (b) of the Constitution, to have been elected President:
Provided that the Chairperson of the Commission may declare a candidate elected as the President before all the counties have delivered their results if in the opinion of the commission the results that have not been received will not make a difference as to the winner on the basis of Article 138(4)(a) and (b) of the Constitution;
The way I see it?
Verification happens at the polling station where a recount may be had before results are declared till all parties be satisfied. Disputes too....
No verification happens at any other stage seeing they can only tally. So it’s stupid for RO or even the chairperson to pretend to verify while they can’t change nothing.
To hasten announcement, let ROs declare results and they remain final. Chairperson’s job is to merely sum them up and carry out the constitutional tests of 50%+1 and counties.
To do this,all he needs are 34Bs.
Each 34B must be accompanied by forms 34As but no verification is necessary.
This is quite ok but it means Constituency results are not final,can’t work under the current legislation.The way I see it?
Verification happens at the polling station where a recount may be had before results are declared till all parties be satisfied. Disputes too....
No verification happens at any other stage seeing they can only tally. So it’s stupid for RO or even the chairperson to pretend to verify while they can’t change nothing.
To hasten announcement, let ROs declare results and they remain final. Chairperson’s job is to merely sum them up and carry out the constitutional tests of 50%+1 and counties.
To do this,all he needs are 34Bs.
Each 34B must be accompanied by forms 34As but no verification is necessary.
I prefer the parallel tallying at constituencies level and national level, with the national tally from 34As being final of course. It incorporates an inbuilt mechanism for catching mischief at either level.
Nope,
Ok. I see what you mean. Regulation 87 (3) is mischief. So they should have reverted to the old regulations that were not declared unconstitutional. The equivalent in the old regulations is regulation 87 (4) (a) and it was not declared unconstitutional.
If you read that with section 39(1C) (b) of the Elections Act, he must verify those results he gets from the CROs. The only way he can do that is with the 34As at his disposal.
In the last paragraph, he can determine if the remaining counties make no difference from the 34As at his disposal.
It looks like his final declaration should be on the basis of 34Bs. There is no question he needs to verify with 34As though.
It cannot be denied that the Chairperson of the appellant has a significant constitutional role under Sub- Article (10) of Article 138 as the authority with the ultimate mandate of making the declaration that brings to finality the presidential election process. Of course before he makes that declaration his role is to accurately tally all the results exactly as received from the 290 returning officers country-wide, without adding, subtracting, multiplying or dividing any number contained in the two forms from the constituency tallying centre. If any verification or confirmation is anticipated, it has to relate only to confirmation and verification that the candidate to be declared elected president has met the threshold set under Article 138(4), by receiving more than half of all the votes cast in that election; and at least twenty- five per cent of the votes cast in each of more than half of the counties.
Regulation 87 (4) (a) was was not one of those declared unconstitutional. And it's part of the 2012 regulations.Nope,
Ok. I see what you mean. Regulation 87 (3) is mischief. So they should have reverted to the old regulations that were not declared unconstitutional. The equivalent in the old regulations is regulation 87 (4) (a) and it was not declared unconstitutional.
They shouldn’t have attempted to reinsert the spirit of the expunged sections back into the amended regulations as they did.
Judges are simply saying that if the chairperson must verify before declaration,results declared before they reach him are automatically provisional(not final,subject to change) and this is plain wrong. Provisional results was Kiai’s contention. So any regulation to this effect is pure mischief.QuoteIf you read that with section 39(1C) (b) of the Elections Act, he must verify those results he gets from the CROs. The only way he can do that is with the 34As at his disposal.
In the last paragraph, he can determine if the remaining counties make no difference from the 34As at his disposal.
It looks like his final declaration should be on the basis of 34Bs. There is no question he needs to verify with 34As though.
Kiai case says the only verification the chairperson does is of whether any candidate meets the constitutional threshold.QuoteIt cannot be denied that the Chairperson of the appellant has a significant constitutional role under Sub- Article (10) of Article 138 as the authority with the ultimate mandate of making the declaration that brings to finality the presidential election process. Of course before he makes that declaration his role is to accurately tally all the results exactly as received from the 290 returning officers country-wide, without adding, subtracting, multiplying or dividing any number contained in the two forms from the constituency tallying centre. If any verification or confirmation is anticipated, it has to relate only to confirmation and verification that the candidate to be declared elected president has met the threshold set under Article 138(4), by receiving more than half of all the votes cast in that election; and at least twenty- five per cent of the votes cast in each of more than half of the counties.
This is what is meant by 39(1C)(b) and not arithmetical accuracy or anything else.
Chebukati may have failed on infinite levels and points but not in declaring results without forms 34A. He was ready to verify results but Kiai case took that away.
It follows that with the electoral laws as they are,Final results declared without all forms 34A but with all 34Bs can’t be said not verifiable.
Then,
The appellant, as opposed to its chairperson, upon receipt of prescribed forms containing tabulated results for election of President electronically transmitted to it from the near 40,000 polling stations, is required to tally and “verify” the results received at the national tallying centre, without interfering with the figures and details of the outcome of the vote as received from the constituency tallying centre
Therefore the appellant(IEBC) is supposed to receive results at NTC from
(1) the CTCs and
(2) all the polling stations(34As) and tally and "verify" them(but not 34A verification).
It looks like IEBC needs the transmitted 34As before declaration by the chairman. There were thousands sill missing days after the declaration. If you look at IEBC as one entity for this purpose, even if they are relying only on 34Bs, it still means these 34Bs were completed with thousands of 34As still unavailable.
Chebukati may have failed on infinite levels and points but not in declaring results without forms 34A. He was ready to verify results but Kiai case took that away.
It follows that with the electoral laws as they are,Final results declared without all forms 34A but with all 34Bs can’t be said not verifiable.
He declared the election outcome with max 108 34Bs. 3 days after the declaration, August 14th, IEBC still had not released the remaining 182 34Bs. Court records.
Whatever else one may call it, a valid declaration is not one of those things.
QuoteThen,
The appellant, as opposed to its chairperson, upon receipt of prescribed forms containing tabulated results for election of President electronically transmitted to it from the near 40,000 polling stations, is required to tally and “verify” the results received at the national tallying centre, without interfering with the figures and details of the outcome of the vote as received from the constituency tallying centre
Therefore the appellant(IEBC) is supposed to receive results at NTC from
(1) the CTCs and
(2) all the polling stations(34As) and tally and "verify" them(but not 34A verification).
It looks like IEBC needs the transmitted 34As before declaration by the chairman. There were thousands sill missing days after the declaration. If you look at IEBC as one entity for this purpose, even if they are relying only on 34Bs, it still means these 34Bs were completed with thousands of 34As still unavailable.
You got it but lost it somewhere.
The appellant vide the 290 ROs receives prescribed forms containing tabulated results for election of President electronically transmitted to it from the near 40,000 polling stations.I mean this is accomplished by the ROs receiving the results from the stations and filling 290 forms 34B, and not NTC receiving them which is at most an internal process since the results have ALREADY been electronically transmitted.
Remember the judges were not making an argument about the NEED of forms 34As at NTC as nobody was contesting this. So your inference from this statement is plain wrong.
Back to my point. The election Act is clear as to transmission of forms 34A and 34B to NTC, but generation of 34C needs ONLY 34Bs and not 34As.
If the appellant generates 290 forms 34B, and transmits them to NTC,there is presumption that it's ROs are full of integrity having been rigorously vetted, and there is no further need to verify their job before declaration as the appellant had suggested, the effect of which is to make the product of such a rigorous exercise provisional.
A few things
1. It was NASWA which claimed that the chairman declared results without all forms 34B I doubt the claim survived the judgement. IEBC denied this.
2. If they declared the results without all forms 34Bs then the results were at that point unverifiable.
3. My contention is not forms 34B but 34A. NASWA and the judges all lambasted chairperson for declaring without all forms 34A.
On #3 I agree all forms 34A should be transmitted, and this was not done by the time of declaration. What I dispute is the impact of the missing forms. I maintain that the laws as they are, absence of these forms does not affect verifiability of the results. SCOK,NASWA insist they do.
Mwilu was right that Kiai case did not overrule the Elections Act sections that require transmission of forms 34A to NTC, but the chairperson never claimed that it did. That was a strawman. The chairperson simply said the forms were not necessary for the declaration.
Chebukati may have failed on infinite levels and points but not in declaring results without forms 34A. He was ready to verify results but Kiai case took that away.
It follows that with the electoral laws as they are,Final results declared without all forms 34A but with all 34Bs can’t be said not verifiable.
He declared the election outcome with max 108 34Bs. 3 days after the declaration, August 14th, IEBC still had not released the remaining 182 34Bs. Court records.
Whatever else one may call it, a valid declaration is not one of those things.
A few things
1. It was NASWA which claimed that the chairman declared results without all forms 34B I doubt the claim survived the judgement. IEBC denied this.
2. If they declared the results without all forms 34Bs then the results were at that point unverifiable.
3. My contention is not forms 34B but 34A. NASWA and the judges all lambasted chairperson for declaring without all forms 34A.
On #3 I agree all forms 34A should be transmitted, and this was not done by the time of declaration. What I dispute is the impact of the missing forms. I maintain that the laws as they are, absence of these forms does not affect verifiability of the results. SCOK,NASWA insist they do.
Mwilu was right that Kiai case did not overrule the Elections Act sections that require transmission of forms 34A to NTC, but the chairperson never claimed that it did. That was a strawman. The chairperson simply said the forms were not necessary for the declaration.
You would be right minus the part in red. As it is you are repurposing the plain meaning of the sentence to support your claim. Both NTC and CTC receive 34As. This is a legal requirement, not an internal process.I have nowhere indicated that NTC is not bound to receive forms 34A. That is in the Elections Act and the Regulations.
Study Kassait's affidavit. I lost some documents in my iPad following the upgrade and it was among them. If you have it, pleas do check it out against Nyangasi'sChebukati may have failed on infinite levels and points but not in declaring results without forms 34A. He was ready to verify results but Kiai case took that away.
It follows that with the electoral laws as they are,Final results declared without all forms 34A but with all 34Bs can’t be said not verifiable.
He declared the election outcome with max 108 34Bs. 3 days after the declaration, August 14th, IEBC still had not released the remaining 182 34Bs. Court records.
Whatever else one may call it, a valid declaration is not one of those things.
A few things
1. It was NASWA which claimed that the chairman declared results without all forms 34B I doubt the claim survived the judgement. IEBC denied this.
2. If they declared the results without all forms 34Bs then the results were at that point unverifiable.
3. My contention is not forms 34B but 34A. NASWA and the judges all lambasted chairperson for declaring without all forms 34A.
On #3 I agree all forms 34A should be transmitted, and this was not done by the time of declaration. What I dispute is the impact of the missing forms. I maintain that the laws as they are, absence of these forms does not affect verifiability of the results. SCOK,NASWA insist they do.
Mwilu was right that Kiai case did not overrule the Elections Act sections that require transmission of forms 34A to NTC, but the chairperson never claimed that it did. That was a strawman. The chairperson simply said the forms were not necessary for the declaration.
It was not denied in court.
Precisely. I really pity Chebukati here because he been tossed around and know he find himself tied in knots he cannot entangled himself from. Parlliament need to make this very clear.,...by codifying IEBC regulations into law.
You would be right minus the part in red. As it is you are repurposing the plain meaning of the sentence to support your claim. Both NTC and CTC receive 34As. This is a legal requirement, not an internal process.I have nowhere indicated that NTC is not bound to receive forms 34A. That is in the Elections Act and the Regulations.
You need to appreciate that some provisions of the laws came into place before this Kiai case hit High Court. They have been retained but are redundant.
Previously ROs were supposed to go to NTC with both their tallies and station results forms (not sure how they designated them back then). Chairperson was supposed to use both these to declare the final results.
We still have this,except it is in electronic form and no verification whatsoever is expected of the chairperson save constitutional threshold.
Slow down. There is no ambiguity in the sentence in question. 40,000 scans are expected at NTC to be tallied and verified. Remove the red highlight, and you might see the ambiguity. But the highlight is there as part of sentence. Are you denying that?
And 290 form 34B scans - which are also expected in NTC - are exactly for what purpose? To counter check 34As? And then what happens if there is a discrepancy. This is simple commonsensical issue that senior judges should make it simple and clear.Slow down. There is no ambiguity in the sentence in question. 40,000 scans are expected at NTC to be tallied and verified. Remove the red highlight, and you might see the ambiguity. But the highlight is there as part of sentence. Are you denying that?
I think you are willfully ignoring Kiai case.You would be right minus the part in red. As it is you are repurposing the plain meaning of the sentence to support your claim. Both NTC and CTC receive 34As. This is a legal requirement, not an internal process.I have nowhere indicated that NTC is not bound to receive forms 34A. That is in the Elections Act and the Regulations.
You need to appreciate that some provisions of the laws came into place before this Kiai case hit High Court. They have been retained but are redundant.
Previously ROs were supposed to go to NTC with both their tallies and station results forms (not sure how they designated them back then). Chairperson was supposed to use both these to declare the final results.
We still have this,except it is in electronic form and no verification whatsoever is expected of the chairperson save constitutional threshold.
Slow down. There is no ambiguity in the sentence in question. 40,000 scans are expected at NTC to be tallied and verified. Remove the red highlight, and you might see the ambiguity. But the highlight is there as part of sentence. Are you denying that?
If any verification or confirmation is anticipated, it has to relate only to confirmation and verification that the candidate to be declared elected president has met the threshold set under Article 138(4), by receiving more than half of all the votes cast in that election; and at least twenty- five per cent of the votes cast in each of more than half of the counties.
Study Kassait's affidavit. I lost some documents in my iPad following the upgrade and it was among them. If you have it, pleas do check it out against Nyangasi'sChebukati may have failed on infinite levels and points but not in declaring results without forms 34A. He was ready to verify results but Kiai case took that away.
It follows that with the electoral laws as they are,Final results declared without all forms 34A but with all 34Bs can’t be said not verifiable.
He declared the election outcome with max 108 34Bs. 3 days after the declaration, August 14th, IEBC still had not released the remaining 182 34Bs. Court records.
Whatever else one may call it, a valid declaration is not one of those things.
A few things
1. It was NASWA which claimed that the chairman declared results without all forms 34B I doubt the claim survived the judgement. IEBC denied this.
2. If they declared the results without all forms 34Bs then the results were at that point unverifiable.
3. My contention is not forms 34B but 34A. NASWA and the judges all lambasted chairperson for declaring without all forms 34A.
On #3 I agree all forms 34A should be transmitted, and this was not done by the time of declaration. What I dispute is the impact of the missing forms. I maintain that the laws as they are, absence of these forms does not affect verifiability of the results. SCOK,NASWA insist they do.
Mwilu was right that Kiai case did not overrule the Elections Act sections that require transmission of forms 34A to NTC, but the chairperson never claimed that it did. That was a strawman. The chairperson simply said the forms were not necessary for the declaration.
It was not denied in court.
There is ambiguity about what exactly to do with the 34Bs. But because they cannot be changed, one way to reconcile it is that there are 290 constituency election results and 1 final result. The laws, cases and regulations all seem to suggest one thing or the other without forbidding the other.You are right there is ambiguity, but you are not reconciling nothing by admitting there are 290 elections with one final.
There is understandably some confusion, especially if you are not a lawyer whose day job it is to understand just this particular law. Ultimately, I think Chebukati should count 34As creating the final result. The 290 constituency results go into the record too.Confusion is not just for lawyers. IEBC the very body for whom these laws was made and affect their very core business are or were confused.
There will be permissible discrepancies due to human error. Huge discrepancies can make it easy for someone to pinpoint where the problem is and have uses elsewhere like in a petition court.
There is obviously need for clarity in the process. The new laws should also clarify what happens in the event of a very close election e.g. if Uhuruto lose by one vote.
I think you are willfully ignoring Kiai case.You would be right minus the part in red. As it is you are repurposing the plain meaning of the sentence to support your claim. Both NTC and CTC receive 34As. This is a legal requirement, not an internal process.I have nowhere indicated that NTC is not bound to receive forms 34A. That is in the Elections Act and the Regulations.
You need to appreciate that some provisions of the laws came into place before this Kiai case hit High Court. They have been retained but are redundant.
Previously ROs were supposed to go to NTC with both their tallies and station results forms (not sure how they designated them back then). Chairperson was supposed to use both these to declare the final results.
We still have this,except it is in electronic form and no verification whatsoever is expected of the chairperson save constitutional threshold.
Slow down. There is no ambiguity in the sentence in question. 40,000 scans are expected at NTC to be tallied and verified. Remove the red highlight, and you might see the ambiguity. But the highlight is there as part of sentence. Are you denying that?
The only verification at NTC is constitutional threshold,not 34As v 34Bs. That’s your and my wish but the judges said otherwise.
Do you need me pasting that portion of the judgement the third time on this thread?
HereQuoteIf any verification or confirmation is anticipated, it has to relate only to confirmation and verification that the candidate to be declared elected president has met the threshold set under Article 138(4), by receiving more than half of all the votes cast in that election; and at least twenty- five per cent of the votes cast in each of more than half of the counties.
Of course it’s quite possible the judges missed your read-only,make-public-note,file-a-Petition-to-correct perspective
Then,
The appellant, as opposed to its chairperson, upon receipt of prescribed forms containing tabulated results for election of President electronically transmitted to it from the near 40,000 polling stations, is required to tally and “verify” the results received at the national tallying centre, without interfering with the figures and details of the outcome of the vote as received from the constituency tallying centre
Therefore the appellant(IEBC) is supposed to receive results at NTC from
(1) the CTCs and
(2) all the polling stations(34As) and tally and "verify" them(but not 34A verification).
It looks like IEBC needs the transmitted 34As before declaration by the chairman. There were thousands sill missing days after the declaration. If you look at IEBC as one entity for this purpose, even if they are relying only on 34Bs, it still means these 34Bs were completed with thousands of 34As still unavailable.
It reconciles the requirement for NTC to tally and verify only when all Form 34As are in and the fact that 34Bs are final.There is ambiguity about what exactly to do with the 34Bs. But because they cannot be changed, one way to reconcile it is that there are 290 constituency election results and 1 final result. The laws, cases and regulations all seem to suggest one thing or the other without forbidding the other.You are right there is ambiguity, but you are not reconciling nothing by admitting there are 290 elections with one final.
NTC tallying forms 34As and clustering them by constituencies and declaring them by the same would for all purposes and intent meet the constitutional meaning of 290 elections and one final result. But question remains, in that case,what’s the purpose of CTCs with regard to presidential elections?Yes it would. But it would provide less checks and balances. If NTC uses 34As instead, it could discover that some 34B's may not have incorporated all the relevant 34As. In addition, I doubt any court would strike out such a declaration based on the primary document, all the confusion notwithstanding.
My point is because it's literally their job description. There is no excuse for them to not figure this out. It's not straighforward, but it's hardly the puzzle IEBC makes it out to be.QuoteThere is understandably some confusion, especially if you are not a lawyer whose day job it is to understand just this particular law. Ultimately, I think Chebukati should count 34As creating the final result. The 290 constituency results go into the record too.Confusion is not just for lawyers. IEBC the very body for whom these laws was made and affect their very core business are or were confused.
QuoteThere will be permissible discrepancies due to human error. Huge discrepancies can make it easy for someone to pinpoint where the problem is and have uses elsewhere like in a petition court.
There is obviously need for clarity in the process. The new laws should also clarify what happens in the event of a very close election e.g. if Uhuruto lose by one vote.
Totally agreed.
I personally maintain that with CTC results being final,the value of 34As at NTC is next to nil. I also believe if NTC tallies 34As, 34Bs are completely worthless in that it doesn’t matter what they say,what NTC says is final. So they are no different from the provisional results Kiai was fleeing from.
So you have now discovered verification is untenable and adopted comparing? Ok. We are making good progress.
I totally agree with you on the meaning of verification in this context. It has nothing to do with comparing 34B and 34A. Zero. Nada.
My concern is with the bit below and your attempt to interpret it as only allowed vide the 290 ROs and 34Bs. That is changing the meaining of the plain reading. With the red part any doubt that 34As are expected at NTC for tallying and verification is contrived.The judges are explaining electoral laws as per constitution,Elections Act and Regulations. Study the statement immediately befor this to get the contextQuoteThen,
The appellant, as opposed to its chairperson, upon receipt of prescribed forms containing tabulated results for election of President electronically transmitted to it from the near 40,000 polling stations, is required to tally and “verify” the results received at the national tallying centre, without interfering with the figures and details of the outcome of the vote as received from the constituency tallying centre
Therefore the appellant(IEBC) is supposed to receive results at NTC from
(1) the CTCs and
(2) all the polling stations(34As) and tally and "verify" them(but not 34A verification).
It looks like IEBC needs the transmitted 34As before declaration by the chairman. There were thousands sill missing days after the declaration. If you look at IEBC as one entity for this purpose, even if they are relying only on 34Bs, it still means these 34Bs were completed with thousands of 34As still unavailable.
It is evident to us from the above sequence of events that the role of the Chairperson of the appellant is circumscribed. Article 138 deals with events at the polling stations where votes are counted, tallied, verified and declared. We hold further that reference to the appellant in Sub Article (3)(c) is not to be construed to mean the chairperson but rather, the returning officers who are mandated, after counting the votes in the polling stations, to tally and verify the count and declare the result.
I have been in agreement with you on that for quite a few posts. But better that you finally get it than not, however slowly.So you have now discovered verification is untenable and adopted comparing? Ok. We are making good progress.
I totally agree with you on the meaning of verification in this context. It has nothing to do with comparing 34B and 34A. Zero. Nada.
I saw, and included, the statement before it, in the original reference to it. It still doesn't change the plain meaning, even with the added context.QuoteMy concern is with the bit below and your attempt to interpret it as only allowed vide the 290 ROs and 34Bs. That is changing the meaining of the plain reading. With the red part any doubt that 34As are expected at NTC for tallying and verification is contrived.The judges are explaining electoral laws as per constitution,Elections Act and Regulations. Study the statement immediately befor this to get the contextQuoteThen,
The appellant, as opposed to its chairperson, upon receipt of prescribed forms containing tabulated results for election of President electronically transmitted to it from the near 40,000 polling stations, is required to tally and “verify” the results received at the national tallying centre, without interfering with the figures and details of the outcome of the vote as received from the constituency tallying centre
Therefore the appellant(IEBC) is supposed to receive results at NTC from
(1) the CTCs and
(2) all the polling stations(34As) and tally and "verify" them(but not 34A verification).
It looks like IEBC needs the transmitted 34As before declaration by the chairman. There were thousands sill missing days after the declaration. If you look at IEBC as one entity for this purpose, even if they are relying only on 34Bs, it still means these 34Bs were completed with thousands of 34As still unavailable.
Yes. The other verification that involves he 51% totaland 25% in a number of counties.QuoteIt is evident to us from the above sequence of events that the role of the Chairperson of the appellant is circumscribed. Article 138 deals with events at the polling stations where votes are counted, tallied, verified and declared. We hold further that reference to the appellant in Sub Article (3)(c) is not to be construed to mean the chairperson but rather, the returning officers who are mandated, after counting the votes in the polling stations, to tally and verify the count and declare the result.
Judges having strongly argued against any form of verification at NTC can’t suddenly be suggesting the same thing. So I believe they are generally speaking.
I won’t push it further,but I find it ridiculous that he judges prescribe the very thing they are ruling against. There is nothing in Kiai case that supports ‘verification’ of 34Bs against 34As if that’s your point. Not to mean this is a bad idea but that it flies in the face of Kiai CaseWe agree on that. You just don't seem to get it for some reason.
Nowhere have I read anything from any judge ruling against verification. Nowhere! Chebukati had a duty to verify. What you are or should be asking is what is verification in this case.Is there any specific law or regulation that covers the bolded part? To me, it seems like discarding is as good as changing the result from that constituency to 0. That is a form of alteration.
Verification is NOT and can never be ALTERATION of the forms of results! It is limited to:
1. Ensuring that the forms / results come from the polling station and Constituency
2. The results / forms are not tampered with based on the security features embedded
3. The results declared at the polling stations are in agreement with or are reflected accurately on the Form 34B
4. The results / forms are legal in that they meet all the statutory requirements and conform to the rules and regulations of the IEBC such as signatures of the POs and ROs
5. etc
What is next?
6. What happens if the above is absent or not complied with?
The IEBC has several options:
A. Discard the results and treat the results a nullity (possibly call a new election in that area)
B. Seek consensus with the parties and if they agree on an option such as allow the forms, then go ahead if they don't revert to A (above)
There is No room for him to alter or purport to correct the forms. It is simply NOT Logical for him to do so. He lacks the basic knowledge to amend.
Except there is no such requirement. Again you have willfully ignored Kiai case which said verification is only of constitutional threshold. Was there a better chance for the judges to express themselves on verification?
It reconciles the requirement for NTC to tally and verify only when all Form 34As are in and the fact that 34Bs are final.
Yes it would. But it would provide less checks and balances. If NTC uses 34As instead, it could discover that some 34B's may not have incorporated all the relevant 34As. In addition, I doubt any court would strike out such a declaration based on the primary document, all the confusion notwithstanding.You’re saying if NTC uses original results instead of tallies they stand a better chance at accuracy? I’m not sure about that. 40K results by 290 ROs is about 140 on average and we get errors. If NTC matches this ratio then you may have a point.
My point is because it's literally their job description. There is no excuse for them to not figure this out. It's not straighforward, but it's hardly the puzzle IEBC makes it out to be.
34Bs are useful in some contexts. They can give IEBC useful insight about their operations at the constituency levels. Maybe some areas are more efficient and more accurate than others. This is useful information. Without NTC's own tally, there is nothing to measure them against.There are merits and demerits for whatever approaches you choose. I’m all for least ambiguity.
There is a requirement for all 34As to be present. Counting 34As and not changing 34Bs is not forbidden by the Kiai case.Except there is no such requirement. Again you have willfully ignored Kiai case which said verification is only of constitutional threshold. Was there a better chance for the judges to express themselves on verification?
It reconciles the requirement for NTC to tally and verify only when all Form 34As are in and the fact that 34Bs are final.
The regulations sneaked behind the court’s that specifically dealt with verification were called mischief.You can verify the other way without carrying out any mischief.
To verify at NTC you can either follow the mischief called out as such by the court or follow Kiai Case. I’m working with Kiai Case,not sure about you.
I am saying that by using all 34As, NTC can carry out comparative analysis with results from the constituencies. Additionally, because they have the benefit of both 34Bs and 34As, they can catch and fix errors in the 34B, without changing the original 34B.QuoteYes it would. But it would provide less checks and balances. If NTC uses 34As instead, it could discover that some 34B's may not have incorporated all the relevant 34As. In addition, I doubt any court would strike out such a declaration based on the primary document, all the confusion notwithstanding.You’re saying if NTC uses original results instead of tallies they stand a better chance at accuracy? I’m not sure about that. 40K results by 290 ROs is about 140 on average and we get errors. If NTC matches this ratio then you may have a point.
The sensible reading would have been cognizant of the emphasis placed on 34A as the primary document. The least legally risky path is to use 34A, if there is confusion(which should not be there IMO).QuoteMy point is because it's literally their job description. There is no excuse for them to not figure this out. It's not straighforward, but it's hardly the puzzle IEBC makes it out to be.
IEBC did not play confused; they followed one of the possible reading which was buttressed by Kiai Case and stuck with 34Bs. This is the natural and most sensible reading. Yes 34As were required at NTC but not necessary for generating 34C.
They have been tallying and declaring at constituency just to repeat the same at NTC in addition to changing the constituency results for years. This approach simply forces them to make the changes they want, on their own separate tally without changing constituency results.Quote34Bs are useful in some contexts. They can give IEBC useful insight about their operations at the constituency levels. Maybe some areas are more efficient and more accurate than others. This is useful information. Without NTC's own tally, there is nothing to measure them against.There are merits and demerits for whatever approaches you choose. I’m all for least ambiguity.
I’d question the laborious task of tallying and declaring at the Constituency just to repeat the same at NTC just to gain ‘useful insight about Constituency operations’. You want to know whether your staff can count or what?
Termie,
You are making circular arguments.
Yes you can count 34As or even recount the votes but given the finality of CTC figure, you are bound to use it else it is provisional
If you catch and fix errors on 34Bs,then declaring results at CTC is in vain as they are unreliable and ‘subject to confirmation’ by NTC. This very thing was the basis of Kiai Case.
Before Kiai Case, NTC used to verify 34Bs from 34As and this was taken away from them. Judges said verification at Constituency is final and they should work with those figures. So the sensible thing is not defying the court but complying. They complied and relied on CTC only to be charged with declaring unverified results.
If you count 34As at NTC and declare without any regard to CTC results, then CTC results despite being final don’t matter at all in declaring the final results.
There is totally zero sense in ‘final,not provisional’ when the same matters nothing in declaring the final results. The finality of the results is not just in the sense that they can’t be changed but that the very figures are aggregated to generate the final resultsTermie,
You are making circular arguments.
Yes you can count 34As or even recount the votes but given the finality of CTC figure, you are bound to use it else it is provisional
If you catch and fix errors on 34Bs,then declaring results at CTC is in vain as they are unreliable and ‘subject to confirmation’ by NTC. This very thing was the basis of Kiai Case.
Before Kiai Case, NTC used to verify 34Bs from 34As and this was taken away from them. Judges said verification at Constituency is final and they should work with those figures. So the sensible thing is not defying the court but complying. They complied and relied on CTC only to be charged with declaring unverified results.
If you count 34As at NTC and declare without any regard to CTC results, then CTC results despite being final don’t matter at all in declaring the final results.
The way I understand it. Previous, CTC results could be used at NTC, and altered for various reasons, from legit ones to illegitimate ones to come up with the final result which was ultimately matched perfectly with CTC results altered and all. The effect was, the original constituency results as initially tallied disappeared, hence the term provisional results.
Now? The final result at NTC can be generated with the benefit of 34Bs and 34As. But they cannot be changed, even if the final result reflects differences(from human error). Ergo, they remain part of the record as constituency results, and are thus final, not provisional.
There is totally zero sense in ‘final,not provisional’ when the same matters nothing in declaring the final results. The finality of the results is not just in the sense that they can’t be changed but that the very figures are aggregated to generate the final resultsTermie,
You are making circular arguments.
Yes you can count 34As or even recount the votes but given the finality of CTC figure, you are bound to use it else it is provisional
If you catch and fix errors on 34Bs,then declaring results at CTC is in vain as they are unreliable and ‘subject to confirmation’ by NTC. This very thing was the basis of Kiai Case.
Before Kiai Case, NTC used to verify 34Bs from 34As and this was taken away from them. Judges said verification at Constituency is final and they should work with those figures. So the sensible thing is not defying the court but complying. They complied and relied on CTC only to be charged with declaring unverified results.
If you count 34As at NTC and declare without any regard to CTC results, then CTC results despite being final don’t matter at all in declaring the final results.
The way I understand it. Previous, CTC results could be used at NTC, and altered for various reasons, from legit ones to illegitimate ones to come up with the final result which was ultimately matched perfectly with CTC results altered and all. The effect was, the original constituency results as initially tallied disappeared, hence the term provisional results.
Now? The final result at NTC can be generated with the benefit of 34Bs and 34As. But they cannot be changed, even if the final result reflects differences(from human error). Ergo, they remain part of the record as constituency results, and are thus final, not provisional.
It makes sense when you use the ordinary unembellished meaning of the words.You do just what you are avoiding.
Final: coming at the end of a series.
-- last, closing, concluding, finishing, end, terminating, ultimate, eventual
CTC results are final at the constituency level. You do not get a different set of constituency results after that.
Provisional: arranged or existing for the present, possibly to be changed later.
CTC results will remain unchanged even if you get the final tally from the primary document.
vooke,Termie,
Reading the SCOK ruling on Pg 124. The impression I am getting is that NTC should verify(not against 34A). After that they tally 34B. At the moment they make the declaration, all 34As should be available for any interested observer.
Therefore the drill seems to be to use 34B to generate the final result. Chebukati's declaration was invalid because not all 34As were available at the time. If he had all of them, the declaration would have been valid in law. Regardless of the ramifications(including a wrong outcome on the basis of 34As which could be cured in court). If the 34Bs were based on all 34As, as IEBC would have us believe, then most likely the outcome was correct; but they could not show that they had all 34As.
More yet, from the ruling on paragraph 290, it looks like 34C would still include 34As like the old ones. It looks like the NTC should make a tally(or just a list) of 34As that go into 34B. The 34Bs are not mere data(contrary to what I suggested above), they are the ones to go into the tally that will be declared. The NTC tally is the mere data.
In a nutshell, they have been told, just tally it the way you used to do it, with one exception; don't change the 34Bs. I think they used to go through the 34Bs(or their analogue) and make fixes as required. But now they can't do that. And they(the commission CTC/NTC/... compendium) must show that all the 34As were there.
Other than the finding of illegality of the declaration, which I agree with, the rest of this is labyrinthine. If I am having trouble holding this together in my head, I am sure quite a few others are. It's not so obvious after all. This stuff needs to be more explicitly spelled out. Something like The NTC should tally and verify the 34Bs(this should be spelled out). And don't declare the result without all 34As available to the public. Then declare the tally from the 34Bs. The value of the 34As is to make it easier for interested parties to be able to make quick decisions on if they have a case to petition or not.
IEBC should be front and center trying to get this simplified before the next election. But all we see are memos, meeting in fancy hotels in Naivasha, getting ready to self audit their servers ... And they should incorporate all parties, including seeking advice from the SCOK. This should be the easiest and least controversial change among all the parties.
In the US, the results of the states are final. The Electoral College meets and actualizes them. Nobody in DC tries to tinker with them. I think that is what they were aiming for with the CTC finality. But they still held onto the NTC being able to tinker with things.
6. THAT I am aware that the law required the results of the polling stations to be tallied in respect of each candidate; to be recorded on Form 34A, which was to be scanned and together the record of results transmitted electronically to the Constituency Returning Officer and the National Tallying Centre, in order to secure that the results declared at every level are accountable, verifiable and credible.
7. THAT in response to Paragraph 6, the correct position is that the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2017: Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission v. Maina Kiai, & 5 Others, ruled that the electronically transmitted image of Form 34B is the final result for the Presidential Election with respect to each Constituency and it is therefore erroneous and incorrect to say, as alleged in the Supporting Affidavit, that Forms 34A from the polling station were the final results.
vooke,Termie,
Reading the SCOK ruling on Pg 124. The impression I am getting is that NTC should verify(not against 34A). After that they tally 34B. At the moment they make the declaration, all 34As should be available for any interested observer.
Therefore the drill seems to be to use 34B to generate the final result. Chebukati's declaration was invalid because not all 34As were available at the time. If he had all of them, the declaration would have been valid in law. Regardless of the ramifications(including a wrong outcome on the basis of 34As which could be cured in court). If the 34Bs were based on all 34As, as IEBC would have us believe, then most likely the outcome was correct; but they could not show that they had all 34As.
More yet, from the ruling on paragraph 290, it looks like 34C would still include 34As like the old ones. It looks like the NTC should make a tally(or just a list) of 34As that go into 34B. The 34Bs are not mere data(contrary to what I suggested above), they are the ones to go into the tally that will be declared. The NTC tally is the mere data.
In a nutshell, they have been told, just tally it the way you used to do it, with one exception; don't change the 34Bs. I think they used to go through the 34Bs(or their analogue) and make fixes as required. But now they can't do that. And they(the commission CTC/NTC/... compendium) must show that all the 34As were there.
Other than the finding of illegality of the declaration, which I agree with, the rest of this is labyrinthine. If I am having trouble holding this together in my head, I am sure quite a few others are. It's not so obvious after all. This stuff needs to be more explicitly spelled out. Something like The NTC should tally and verify the 34Bs(this should be spelled out). And don't declare the result without all 34As available to the public. Then declare the tally from the 34Bs. The value of the 34As is to make it easier for interested parties to be able to make quick decisions on if they have a case to petition or not.
IEBC should be front and center trying to get this simplified before the next election. But all we see are memos, meeting in fancy hotels in Naivasha, getting ready to self audit their servers ... And they should incorporate all parties, including seeking advice from the SCOK. This should be the easiest and least controversial change among all the parties.
In the US, the results of the states are final. The Electoral College meets and actualizes them. Nobody in DC tries to tinker with them. I think that is what they were aiming for with the CTC finality. But they still held onto the NTC being able to tinker with things.
As I said, this is not one of those Jubilee vs NASWA.
I don’t really blame the judges for relying trying to resolve these ambiguities, I blame them for not calling them out.
I also blame IEBC for not strongly arguing out their position in court. Kassait simply said that as per Kiai Case,34B are final and not 34A;
Nyangasi Supporting AffidavitQuote6. THAT I am aware that the law required the results of the polling stations to be tallied in respect of each candidate; to be recorded on Form 34A, which was to be scanned and together the record of results transmitted electronically to the Constituency Returning Officer and the National Tallying Centre, in order to secure that the results declared at every level are accountable, verifiable and credible.
KassaitQuote7. THAT in response to Paragraph 6, the correct position is that the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2017: Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission v. Maina Kiai, & 5 Others, ruled that the electronically transmitted image of Form 34B is the final result for the Presidential Election with respect to each Constituency and it is therefore erroneous and incorrect to say, as alleged in the Supporting Affidavit, that Forms 34A from the polling station were the final results.
While it is water under the bridge,without the benefit of SCOK hindsight,Chairperson followed th Kiai Case to the letter.
Like you I’m so surprised that IEBC is yet to seek guidance on this matter. Maybe they are overwhelmed by the invalidation and internal politics not to mention NASWA’s relentless assault to care.
Parties too need to be sensitized on the import of ‘devolution’ of presidential elections to 290 constituencies. I believe it is far much easier for their agents to verify generation of 34Bs from 34As at that level,as well as grab copies of all 34As used,instead of assigning two negroes at NTC to oversee tallying of 40K forms. I’m sure they would lose focus at some point.
I also think going forward any presidential candidate ought to demonstrate ability to second agents to at least 1/3 of all constituencies tallying centers.
Kiai case did not free him from ensuring the availability of all 34As at declaration. I am sure if there were only scores of them missing, his declaration might have been upheld.Yeah, the case didn’t, but it watered down their import at declaring final results. IEBC shifted from 34A and 34Bs to 34Bs where the whole action was @. That’s why Kassait had the temerity to claim that 34Bs were IT and not 34A.
Parliament should be fixing the laws. The only problem is the jubilant is planning to eliminate electronic transmission at the polling station. That is problematic on several levels.
Kiai case did not free him from ensuring the availability of all 34As at declaration. I am sure if there were only scores of them missing, his declaration might have been upheld.Yeah, the case didn’t, but it watered down their import at declaring final results. IEBC shifted from 34A and 34Bs to 34Bs where the whole action was @. That’s why Kassait had the temerity to claim that 34Bs were IT and not 34A.
Parliament should be fixing the laws. The only problem is the jubilant is planning to eliminate electronic transmission at the polling station. That is problematic on several levels.
About parliament, I know it’s democracy, the same that invalidated the petition but Jubilee’s majority makes my heart bleed
I am thinking laws that forbid IEBC from electronic transmission from polling stations and sharing the same on a web portal, are iffy. They may end up being held up in hearings in an Odunga court(part of same democratic system) to determine their constitutionality, especially if it can be demonstrated that the intention is to make the elections more opaque in order to permit tyranny of numbers to work. The courts may also be asked to determine the question of how changing laws about a process that is already underway on the basis of older laws affects it. Can the rules be changed in the middle of the game? kind of question. It could be something that goes against the spirit of the constitution.
I am thinking laws that forbid IEBC from electronic transmission from polling stations and sharing the same on a web portal, are iffy. They may end up being held up in hearings in an Odunga court(part of same democratic system) to determine their constitutionality, especially if it can be demonstrated that the intention is to make the elections more opaque in order to permit tyranny of numbers to work. The courts may also be asked to determine the question of how changing laws about a process that is already underway on the basis of older laws affects it. Can the rules be changed in the middle of the game? kind of question. It could be something that goes against the spirit of the constitution.
Totally agreed.
We need to refine electronic transmission not to scrap it. What I disagree with is the idea that there can’t be verifiability or transparency without electronic transmission. This is one of the basis of the many petitions filed. We need electronic transmission but we need to to put it in its place
Termie
Baba during this presser is saying that there should be no verification at Bomas since CTC results are final
He is responding to this part of yesterday’s letter by IEBC
(https://s26.postimg.org/qvsvibcjt/D0837_C8_D-7_C53-4_DDA-90_FE-_BC82421229_D1.jpg)
Negroes are still confused
The 290 declarations are to be preserved with whatever warts they may have. That much I can gather just from these exchanges. What else Chebukati is to do, I am not sure. But it appears not having 10,000 34As on the scene is not one of those options.
That’s outright stupid.
This court should decline to answer a very specific hypothetical question that may came before it for review. IEBC is thoroughly infiltrated by Jubilee and they just want to make sure they know from the courts answer exactly how to steal and tie the court hands. The court should tell Chebukati to read the law and then make a determination if that hypothetical were to happen and then if anybody appeals that determination then the court will make a determination. Chebukati must earn his pay. This is why the framers of the constitution insisted that the Chairperson must be an attorney with the ability to read the law and interpret it. He has a lot of resources and personnel at his disposal and he should be able to make decisions. Just the same way the court of appeal cannot ask the SCOK judges hypothetical questions just so they do not make mistakes that could be overturned by the SCOK, this court should not allow its hands to be tied by jubilee. This court must tell Chebukati to do his job that he is paid millions for once in a while.The 290 declarations are to be preserved with whatever warts they may have. That much I can gather just from these exchanges. What else Chebukati is to do, I am not sure. But it appears not having 10,000 34As on the scene is not one of those options.
The 290 declarations are to be preserved with whatever warts they may have. That much I can gather just from these exchanges. What else Chebukati is to do, I am not sure. But it appears not having 10,000 34As on the scene is not one of those options.34As at NTC are more like provisional results in the lead to nane nane. The Kiai case banned/forbade them but the mechanics was left intact hence the language of statistics and data. In short they are remnants of pre-Kiai Case era
That’s outright stupid.
This court should decline to answer a very specific hypothetical question that may came before it for review. IEBC is thoroughly infiltrated by Jubilee and they just want to make sure they know from the courts answer exactly how to steal and tie the court hands. The court should tell Chebukati to read the law and then make a determination if that hypothetical were to happen and then if anybody appeals that determination then the court will make a determination. Chebukati must earn his pay. This is why the framers of the constitution insisted that the Chairperson must be an attorney with the ability to read the law and interpret it. He has a lot of resources and personnel at his disposal and he should be able to make decisions. Just the same way the court of appeal cannot ask the SCOK judges hypothetical questions just so they do not make mistakes that could be overturned by the SCOK, this court should not allow its hands to be tied by jubilee. This court must tell Chebukati to do his job that he is paid millions for once in a while.The 290 declarations are to be preserved with whatever warts they may have. That much I can gather just from these exchanges. What else Chebukati is to do, I am not sure. But it appears not having 10,000 34As on the scene is not one of those options.
SCOK ought to guide IEBC on interpretation of the law because Chebu’s best intents was trashed by the same court
The 290 declarations are to be preserved with whatever warts they may have. That much I can gather just from these exchanges. What else Chebukati is to do, I am not sure. But it appears not having 10,000 34As on the scene is not one of those options.34As at NTC are more like provisional results in the lead to nane nane. The Kiai case banned/forbade them but the mechanics was left intact hence the language of statistics and data. In short they are remnants of pre-Kiai Case era
The 290 declarations are to be preserved with whatever warts they may have. That much I can gather just from these exchanges. What else Chebukati is to do, I am not sure. But it appears not having 10,000 34As on the scene is not one of those options.34As at NTC are more like provisional results in the lead to nane nane. The Kiai case banned/forbade them but the mechanics was left intact hence the language of statistics and data. In short they are remnants of pre-Kiai Case era
Chebukati's safest bet is to conduct very transparent and verifiable elections. He does that, the rest is moot. His hands are not exactly tied in that respect. In any case he is not forbiden from coordinating the CTCs from NTC and ensuring the correct result.
After verification what happens - if you discover the forms have issues here and there - what does Chebukati do? Ask the RO to varify or alter? If he declares a whole constitutuency election invalid because the form has issues - what is implication on that ? Isn't that court business.
Issak Hassan explained this point.
Before Kiai case, NTC was the was supposed to receive Constituency results and verify them against polling station results, and the Constituency results were provisional.
After verification,the chairperson released verified results which were final.
Enter legal acrobats and everything remains except the chairperson can’t vary nothing yet he is supposed to verify
The court can give an opinion on a purely legal matter but Chebukati is presenting to the judges a hypothetical factual issue and he wants the judges to apply the law and give him an answer which he will then use and tie the courts hands if his decision is appealed to the same court. What kind of crap is that. This is not a moot court.Body of laws and court pronouncements are contradictory. Just read Kiai case and SCOK judgement yet you want him to depart from our own laws and borrow from Commonwealth precedents? Try and look serious
Chebukati is being used by Jubilee. They want to know how the court will rule so that they know how to steal.
Chubukati is being lazy and want the SCOK to do his job. He has an opportunity to create a precedent if the SCOK uphold his ruling. Most judges would not pass such an opportunity like that unless they were under pressure to do so. Like Maina Kiai, he has a chance to make his name part of a precedent to be cited 100 years from now.
Chebukati should find his answer in the body of electoral law beginning with the constitution, the statutes and the case law. He can then look into how the case has similarly been adjudicated in the commonwealth and other countries.
Chubukati can start by looking into the laws governing discrepancies in vote tallies. For example, where the number of votes in a polling station is more than the number of registered voters, the votes from that polling station are excluded from the 34B.
You cannot have the SCOK make hypothetical ruling under the guise of advisory opinion of a matter that is very likely to be litigated.That’s outright stupid.
This court should decline to answer a very specific hypothetical question that may came before it for review. IEBC is thoroughly infiltrated by Jubilee and they just want to make sure they know from the courts answer exactly how to steal and tie the court hands. The court should tell Chebukati to read the law and then make a determination if that hypothetical were to happen and then if anybody appeals that determination then the court will make a determination. Chebukati must earn his pay. This is why the framers of the constitution insisted that the Chairperson must be an attorney with the ability to read the law and interpret it. He has a lot of resources and personnel at his disposal and he should be able to make decisions. Just the same way the court of appeal cannot ask the SCOK judges hypothetical questions just so they do not make mistakes that could be overturned by the SCOK, this court should not allow its hands to be tied by jubilee. This court must tell Chebukati to do his job that he is paid millions for once in a while.The 290 declarations are to be preserved with whatever warts they may have. That much I can gather just from these exchanges. What else Chebukati is to do, I am not sure. But it appears not having 10,000 34As on the scene is not one of those options.
SCOK ought to guide IEBC on interpretation of the law because Chebu’s best intents was trashed by the same court
The subject of his application is verification which makes results verified/verifiable. Kiai forbade him from any verification holding that lower level verification sufficed. But SCOK and NASWA charged him with releasing unverifiable results because of the same reason. So this is far from a trivial matter.The 290 declarations are to be preserved with whatever warts they may have. That much I can gather just from these exchanges. What else Chebukati is to do, I am not sure. But it appears not having 10,000 34As on the scene is not one of those options.34As at NTC are more like provisional results in the lead to nane nane. The Kiai case banned/forbade them but the mechanics was left intact hence the language of statistics and data. In short they are remnants of pre-Kiai Case era
Chebukati's safest bet is to conduct very transparent and verifiable elections. He does that, the rest is moot. His hands are not exactly tied in that respect. In any case he is not forbiden from coordinating the CTCs from NTC and ensuring the correct result.
The subject of his application is verification which makes results verified/verifiable. Kiai forbade him from any verification holding that lower level verification sufficed. But SCOK and NASWA charged him with releasing unverifiable results because of the same reason. So this is far from a trivial matter.The 290 declarations are to be preserved with whatever warts they may have. That much I can gather just from these exchanges. What else Chebukati is to do, I am not sure. But it appears not having 10,000 34As on the scene is not one of those options.34As at NTC are more like provisional results in the lead to nane nane. The Kiai case banned/forbade them but the mechanics was left intact hence the language of statistics and data. In short they are remnants of pre-Kiai Case era
Chebukati's safest bet is to conduct very transparent and verifiable elections. He does that, the rest is moot. His hands are not exactly tied in that respect. In any case he is not forbiden from coordinating the CTCs from NTC and ensuring the correct result.
You think for some reasons he does not 'coordinate CTCs'?
As I said, 34As at NTC are relics of provisional results era, and it's easier to do away with them instead of CTCs.
Another relic is text data accompanying images. Final results are on the images of forms 34A and 34B. If IEBC tallies and releases text data on the portal but relies on the actual images to declare results, there will be charges of cooking. Further, if they receive both but verify before relaying, it means text is provisional and irrelevant.
So they better release images and let the public do the tallying or sit pretty till 34Bs show up upon which they extract data, relay it to the public while preparing 34Cs.
You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai. Throw it out. Pretend it never existed. Then look afresh at the laws. NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances. The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits. The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.
The judiciary need taming if they cant resolve such basic issues.
The court will tell Chebukati to make a decision and then they will review it if brought before them. This is a mischievous law suit instigated by Jubilee and I think the Justices realize that they are being tricked into a trap.
The court will tell Chebukati to make a decision and then they will review it if brought before them. This is a mischievous law suit instigated by Jubilee and I think the Justices realize that they are being tricked into a trap.You are desperate.The judiciary need taming if they cant resolve such basic issues.
You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai. Throw it out. Pretend it never existed. Then look afresh at the laws. NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances. The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits. The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.
Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify
You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!
He was guilty of many sins but one of them was not failure to verify 34Bs against 34As,which was the worst charge of ‘non-compliance’You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai. Throw it out. Pretend it never existed. Then look afresh at the laws. NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances. The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits. The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.
Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify
You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!
That partly explains your problem with the whole question. Conflating Chebu's confusion for vindication. Ignorantia juris non excusat.
The court found him, correctly, guilty of that. His latest foray back to SCOK for an advisory, confirms he did not do it. That he did not know how to do it is no excuse.He was guilty of many sins but one of them was not failure to verify 34Bs against 34As,which was the worst charge of ‘non-compliance’You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai. Throw it out. Pretend it never existed. Then look afresh at the laws. NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances. The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits. The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.
Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify
You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!
That partly explains your problem with the whole question. Conflating Chebu's confusion for vindication. Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Kiai case told him not to,so yeah, he’s guilty of following Kiai CaseThe court found him, correctly, guilty of that. His latest foray back to SCOK for an advisory, confirms he did not do it. That he did not know how to do it is no excuse.He was guilty of many sins but one of them was not failure to verify 34Bs against 34As,which was the worst charge of ‘non-compliance’You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai. Throw it out. Pretend it never existed. Then look afresh at the laws. NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances. The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits. The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.
Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify
You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!
That partly explains your problem with the whole question. Conflating Chebu's confusion for vindication. Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Kiai case told him not to,so yeah, he’s guilty ofThe court found him, correctly, guilty of that. His latest foray back to SCOK for an advisory, confirms he did not do it. That he did not know how to do it is no excuse.He was guilty of many sins but one of them was not failure to verify 34Bs against 34As,which was the worst charge of ‘non-compliance’You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai. Throw it out. Pretend it never existed. Then look afresh at the laws. NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances. The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits. The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.
Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify
You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!
That partly explains your problem with the whole question. Conflating Chebu's confusion for vindication. Ignorantia juris non excusat.followingnot understanding Kiai Case
Kiai: don’t verifyKiai case told him not to,so yeah, he’s guilty ofThe court found him, correctly, guilty of that. His latest foray back to SCOK for an advisory, confirms he did not do it. That he did not know how to do it is no excuse.He was guilty of many sins but one of them was not failure to verify 34Bs against 34As,which was the worst charge of ‘non-compliance’You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai. Throw it out. Pretend it never existed. Then look afresh at the laws. NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances. The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits. The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.
Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify
You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!
That partly explains your problem with the whole question. Conflating Chebu's confusion for vindication. Ignorantia juris non excusat.followingnot understanding Kiai Case
Fixed that for ya.
Kiai: don’t verifyKiai case told him not to,so yeah, he’s guilty ofThe court found him, correctly, guilty of that. His latest foray back to SCOK for an advisory, confirms he did not do it. That he did not know how to do it is no excuse.He was guilty of many sins but one of them was not failure to verify 34Bs against 34As,which was the worst charge of ‘non-compliance’You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai. Throw it out. Pretend it never existed. Then look afresh at the laws. NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances. The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits. The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.
Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify
You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!
That partly explains your problem with the whole question. Conflating Chebu's confusion for vindication. Ignorantia juris non excusat.followingnot understanding Kiai Case
Fixed that for ya.
Maraga: you never verified
CTC verification is final....no idea what concerts and Mozart meanKiai: don’t verifyKiai case told him not to,so yeah, he’s guilty ofThe court found him, correctly, guilty of that. His latest foray back to SCOK for an advisory, confirms he did not do it. That he did not know how to do it is no excuse.He was guilty of many sins but one of them was not failure to verify 34Bs against 34As,which was the worst charge of ‘non-compliance’You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai. Throw it out. Pretend it never existed. Then look afresh at the laws. NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances. The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits. The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.
Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify
You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!
That partly explains your problem with the whole question. Conflating Chebu's confusion for vindication. Ignorantia juris non excusat.followingnot understanding Kiai Case
Fixed that for ya.
Maraga: you never verified
Kiai did not forbid Chebukati and NTC from working in concert with CTC to verify.
CTC verification is final....no idea what concerts and Mozart meanKiai: don’t verifyKiai case told him not to,so yeah, he’s guilty ofThe court found him, correctly, guilty of that. His latest foray back to SCOK for an advisory, confirms he did not do it. That he did not know how to do it is no excuse.He was guilty of many sins but one of them was not failure to verify 34Bs against 34As,which was the worst charge of ‘non-compliance’You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai. Throw it out. Pretend it never existed. Then look afresh at the laws. NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances. The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits. The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.
Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify
You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!
That partly explains your problem with the whole question. Conflating Chebu's confusion for vindication. Ignorantia juris non excusat.followingnot understanding Kiai Case
Fixed that for ya.
Maraga: you never verified
Kiai did not forbid Chebukati and NTC from working in concert with CTC to verify.
And your concert is plain silly. NTC tallies and then sends the forms to CTC for signingCTC verification is final....no idea what concerts and Mozart meanKiai: don’t verifyKiai case told him not to,so yeah, he’s guilty ofThe court found him, correctly, guilty of that. His latest foray back to SCOK for an advisory, confirms he did not do it. That he did not know how to do it is no excuse.He was guilty of many sins but one of them was not failure to verify 34Bs against 34As,which was the worst charge of ‘non-compliance’You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai. Throw it out. Pretend it never existed. Then look afresh at the laws. NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances. The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits. The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.
Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify
You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!
That partly explains your problem with the whole question. Conflating Chebu's confusion for vindication. Ignorantia juris non excusat.followingnot understanding Kiai Case
Fixed that for ya.
Maraga: you never verified
Kiai did not forbid Chebukati and NTC from working in concert with CTC to verify.
Yes. It is final. In concert with means together with.
And your concert is plain silly. NTC tallies and then sends the forms to CTC for signingCTC verification is final....no idea what concerts and Mozart meanKiai: don’t verifyKiai case told him not to,so yeah, he’s guilty of following not understanding Kiai CaseThe court found him, correctly, guilty of that. His latest foray back to SCOK for an advisory, confirms he did not do it. That he did not know how to do it is no excuse.He was guilty of many sins but one of them was not failure to verify 34Bs against 34As,which was the worst charge of ‘non-compliance’You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai. Throw it out. Pretend it never existed. Then look afresh at the laws. NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances. The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits. The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.
Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify
You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!
That partly explains your problem with the whole question. Conflating Chebu's confusion for vindication. Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Fixed that for ya.
Maraga: you never verified
Kiai did not forbid Chebukati and NTC from working in concert with CTC to verify.
Yes. It is final. In concert with means together with.
Kiai limited his imagination. Not that he was hired to hallucinate. He was hired to follow the lawsAnd your concert is plain silly. NTC tallies and then sends the forms to CTC for signingCTC verification is final....no idea what concerts and Mozart meanKiai: don’t verifyKiai case told him not to,so yeah, he’s guilty of following not understanding Kiai CaseThe court found him, correctly, guilty of that. His latest foray back to SCOK for an advisory, confirms he did not do it. That he did not know how to do it is no excuse.He was guilty of many sins but one of them was not failure to verify 34Bs against 34As,which was the worst charge of ‘non-compliance’You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai. Throw it out. Pretend it never existed. Then look afresh at the laws. NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances. The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits. The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.
Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify
You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!
That partly explains your problem with the whole question. Conflating Chebu's confusion for vindication. Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Fixed that for ya.
Maraga: you never verified
Kiai did not forbid Chebukati and NTC from working in concert with CTC to verify.
Yes. It is final. In concert with means together with.
Admittedly Chebukati shares your limited imagination. Blame the ingrained habit I mention earlier on this thread.
Kiai limited his imagination. Not that he was hired to hallucinate. He was hired to follow the lawsAnd your concert is plain silly. NTC tallies and then sends the forms to CTC for signingCTC verification is final....no idea what concerts and Mozart meanKiai: don’t verifyKiai case told him not to,so yeah, he’s guilty of following not understanding Kiai CaseThe court found him, correctly, guilty of that. His latest foray back to SCOK for an advisory, confirms he did not do it. That he did not know how to do it is no excuse.He was guilty of many sins but one of them was not failure to verify 34Bs against 34As,which was the worst charge of ‘non-compliance’You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai. Throw it out. Pretend it never existed. Then look afresh at the laws. NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances. The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits. The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.
Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify
You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!
That partly explains your problem with the whole question. Conflating Chebu's confusion for vindication. Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Fixed that for ya.
Maraga: you never verified
Kiai did not forbid Chebukati and NTC from working in concert with CTC to verify.
Yes. It is final. In concert with means together with.
Admittedly Chebukati shares your limited imagination. Blame the ingrained habit I mention earlier on this thread.
What are 32Bs?Kiai limited his imagination. Not that he was hired to hallucinate. He was hired to follow the lawsAnd your concert is plain silly. NTC tallies and then sends the forms to CTC for signingCTC verification is final....no idea what concerts and Mozart meanKiai: don’t verifyKiai case told him not to,so yeah, he’s guilty of following not understanding Kiai CaseThe court found him, correctly, guilty of that. His latest foray back to SCOK for an advisory, confirms he did not do it. That he did not know how to do it is no excuse.He was guilty of many sins but one of them was not failure to verify 34Bs against 34As,which was the worst charge of ‘non-compliance’You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai. Throw it out. Pretend it never existed. Then look afresh at the laws. NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances. The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits. The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.
Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify
You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!
That partly explains your problem with the whole question. Conflating Chebu's confusion for vindication. Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Fixed that for ya.
Maraga: you never verified
Kiai did not forbid Chebukati and NTC from working in concert with CTC to verify.
Yes. It is final. In concert with means together with.
Admittedly Chebukati shares your limited imagination. Blame the ingrained habit I mention earlier on this thread.
Kiai does not forbid him from tallying and verifying 34As against 32Bs. His lack of imagination does. The man is paid millions to make himself useful and the best he can do is tell the world he doesn’t know his job.
What are 32Bs?Kiai limited his imagination. Not that he was hired to hallucinate. He was hired to follow the lawsAnd your concert is plain silly. NTC tallies and then sends the forms to CTC for signingCTC verification is final....no idea what concerts and Mozart meanKiai: don’t verifyKiai case told him not to,so yeah, he’s guilty of following not understanding Kiai CaseThe court found him, correctly, guilty of that. His latest foray back to SCOK for an advisory, confirms he did not do it. That he did not know how to do it is no excuse.He was guilty of many sins but one of them was not failure to verify 34Bs against 34As,which was the worst charge of ‘non-compliance’You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai. Throw it out. Pretend it never existed. Then look afresh at the laws. NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances. The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits. The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.
Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify
You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!
That partly explains your problem with the whole question. Conflating Chebu's confusion for vindication. Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Fixed that for ya.
Maraga: you never verified
Kiai did not forbid Chebukati and NTC from working in concert with CTC to verify.
Yes. It is final. In concert with means together with.
Admittedly Chebukati shares your limited imagination. Blame the ingrained habit I mention earlier on this thread.
Kiai does not forbid him from tallying and verifying 34As against 32Bs. His lack of imagination does. The man is paid millions to make himself useful and the best he can do is tell the world he doesn’t know his job.
What are 32Bs?Kiai limited his imagination. Not that he was hired to hallucinate. He was hired to follow the lawsAnd your concert is plain silly. NTC tallies and then sends the forms to CTC for signingCTC verification is final....no idea what concerts and Mozart meanKiai: don’t verifyKiai case told him not to,so yeah, he’s guilty of following not understanding Kiai CaseThe court found him, correctly, guilty of that. His latest foray back to SCOK for an advisory, confirms he did not do it. That he did not know how to do it is no excuse.He was guilty of many sins but one of them was not failure to verify 34Bs against 34As,which was the worst charge of ‘non-compliance’You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai. Throw it out. Pretend it never existed. Then look afresh at the laws. NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances. The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits. The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.
Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify
You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!
That partly explains your problem with the whole question. Conflating Chebu's confusion for vindication. Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Fixed that for ya.
Maraga: you never verified
Kiai did not forbid Chebukati and NTC from working in concert with CTC to verify.
Yes. It is final. In concert with means together with.
Admittedly Chebukati shares your limited imagination. Blame the ingrained habit I mention earlier on this thread.
Kiai does not forbid him from tallying and verifying 34As against 32Bs. His lack of imagination does. The man is paid millions to make himself useful and the best he can do is tell the world he doesn’t know his job.
A typo. It should say Kiai does forbid him from tallying and verifying 34As against 34Bs.
NTC and CTC both receive copies of transmitted 34As. Chebukati and CTC could compare their respective copies of 34As for differences, existence etc. If they check out, CTC is allowed to include them in their tally. Chebukati could also give a green light to CTCs to transmit their tally. This is one workflow that can allow him to verify 34As for purposes of creating correct 34Bs, make himself useful and still satisfy Kiai.
What are 32Bs?Kiai limited his imagination. Not that he was hired to hallucinate. He was hired to follow the lawsAnd your concert is plain silly. NTC tallies and then sends the forms to CTC for signingCTC verification is final....no idea what concerts and Mozart meanKiai: don’t verifyKiai case told him not to,so yeah, he’s guilty of following not understanding Kiai CaseThe court found him, correctly, guilty of that. His latest foray back to SCOK for an advisory, confirms he did not do it. That he did not know how to do it is no excuse.He was guilty of many sins but one of them was not failure to verify 34Bs against 34As,which was the worst charge of ‘non-compliance’You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai. Throw it out. Pretend it never existed. Then look afresh at the laws. NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances. The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits. The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.
Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify
You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!
That partly explains your problem with the whole question. Conflating Chebu's confusion for vindication. Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Fixed that for ya.
Maraga: you never verified
Kiai did not forbid Chebukati and NTC from working in concert with CTC to verify.
Yes. It is final. In concert with means together with.
Admittedly Chebukati shares your limited imagination. Blame the ingrained habit I mention earlier on this thread.
Kiai does not forbid him from tallying and verifying 34As against 32Bs. His lack of imagination does. The man is paid millions to make himself useful and the best he can do is tell the world he doesn’t know his job.
A typo. It should say Kiai does forbid him from tallying and verifying 34As against 34Bs.
Correct. He’s forbidden from verification;
It cannot be denied that the Chairperson of the appellant has a significant constitutional role under Sub- Article (10) of Article 138 as the authority with the ultimate mandate of making the declaration that brings to finality the presidential election process. Of course before he makes that declaration his role is to accurately tally all the results exactly as received from the 290 returning officers country-wide, without adding, subtracting, multiplying or dividing any number contained in the two forms from the constituency tallying centre. If any verification or confirmation is anticipated, it has to relate only to confirmation and verification that the candidate to be declared elected president has met the threshold set under Article 138(4), by receiving more than half of all the votes cast in that election; and at least twenty- five per cent of the votes cast in each of more than half of the counties.QuoteNTC and CTC both receive copies of transmitted 34As. Chebukati and CTC could compare their respective copies of 34As for differences, existence etc. If they check out, CTC is allowed to include them in their tally. Chebukati could also give a green light to CTCs to transmit their tally. This is one workflow that can allow him to verify 34As for purposes of creating correct 34Bs, make himself useful and still satisfy Kiai.
Morbid nonsense. Chebu generates 34B and then sends them to CTC to declare before sending them back.
Many have noticed that IEBC is very decisive and fast to make up their minds when the decision favors their masters in Jubilee but very slow and acts confused when they believe that the right decision is not going to give Jubilee an unfair advantage. Its almost as if Jubilee has a right to unfair advantage because of the Kalenjins and the kikuyus came together and other Kenyans should appreciate their "benevolent dictatorship".Substantiate your rant with an example
Every iteration tends to more idiocy. Let’s test thisWhat are 32Bs?Kiai limited his imagination. Not that he was hired to hallucinate. He was hired to follow the lawsAnd your concert is plain silly. NTC tallies and then sends the forms to CTC for signingCTC verification is final....no idea what concerts and Mozart meanKiai: don’t verifyKiai case told him not to,so yeah, he’s guilty of following not understanding Kiai CaseThe court found him, correctly, guilty of that. His latest foray back to SCOK for an advisory, confirms he did not do it. That he did not know how to do it is no excuse.He was guilty of many sins but one of them was not failure to verify 34Bs against 34As,which was the worst charge of ‘non-compliance’You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai. Throw it out. Pretend it never existed. Then look afresh at the laws. NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances. The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits. The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.
Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify
You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!
That partly explains your problem with the whole question. Conflating Chebu's confusion for vindication. Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Fixed that for ya.
Maraga: you never verified
Kiai did not forbid Chebukati and NTC from working in concert with CTC to verify.
Yes. It is final. In concert with means together with.
Admittedly Chebukati shares your limited imagination. Blame the ingrained habit I mention earlier on this thread.
Kiai does not forbid him from tallying and verifying 34As against 32Bs. His lack of imagination does. The man is paid millions to make himself useful and the best he can do is tell the world he doesn’t know his job.
A typo. It should say Kiai does forbid him from tallying and verifying 34As against 34Bs.
Correct. He’s forbidden from verification;
It cannot be denied that the Chairperson of the appellant has a significant constitutional role under Sub- Article (10) of Article 138 as the authority with the ultimate mandate of making the declaration that brings to finality the presidential election process. Of course before he makes that declaration his role is to accurately tally all the results exactly as received from the 290 returning officers country-wide, without adding, subtracting, multiplying or dividing any number contained in the two forms from the constituency tallying centre. If any verification or confirmation is anticipated, it has to relate only to confirmation and verification that the candidate to be declared elected president has met the threshold set under Article 138(4), by receiving more than half of all the votes cast in that election; and at least twenty- five per cent of the votes cast in each of more than half of the counties.QuoteNTC and CTC both receive copies of transmitted 34As. Chebukati and CTC could compare their respective copies of 34As for differences, existence etc. If they check out, CTC is allowed to include them in their tally. Chebukati could also give a green light to CTCs to transmit their tally. This is one workflow that can allow him to verify 34As for purposes of creating correct 34Bs, make himself useful and still satisfy Kiai.
Morbid nonsense. Chebu generates 34B and then sends them to CTC to declare before sending them back.
He does that in your limited imagination.
Chebukati and CTC could compare their respective copies of 34As for differences, existence etc. If they check out, CTC is allowed to include them in their tally.
Every iteration tends to more idiocy. Let’s test thisWhat are 32Bs?Kiai limited his imagination. Not that he was hired to hallucinate. He was hired to follow the lawsAnd your concert is plain silly. NTC tallies and then sends the forms to CTC for signingCTC verification is final....no idea what concerts and Mozart meanKiai: don’t verifyKiai case told him not to,so yeah, he’s guilty of following not understanding Kiai CaseThe court found him, correctly, guilty of that. His latest foray back to SCOK for an advisory, confirms he did not do it. That he did not know how to do it is no excuse.He was guilty of many sins but one of them was not failure to verify 34Bs against 34As,which was the worst charge of ‘non-compliance’You’re just looking for a soft landing. You shy away from absolving Chebu of this particular charge for whatever reasons probably your biases.
Yes, there are court rulings and all. Then there is IEBC caught up in old habits and on that basis believing their hands(and especially Chebukati's) are tied. That somehow Chebukati is barred from knowing and even directing that lower level.
What I am saying is, NTC need not see itself as something different from CTC. They both receive the same set of 34As(ideally at more or less the same time). If they can work together then Chebukati can even give the go ahead for CTCs to complete their 34Bs once he is satisfied they have all the 34As they need.
NB:Looks like there is a problem with the forum(database error).
That’s why you have been manufacturing all sorts of interpretations including Chebu filing petitions against himself just to deal with discrepancies.
Look at your last iteration.
Chebu generates 34B from 34A and then authorizes RO to generate and declare before sending them to him so he can generate 34C?
What’s the point of RO? Why not just go ahead and declare them results right away?
You have to completely forget about how things were done prior to Kiai. Throw it out. Pretend it never existed. Then look afresh at the laws. NTC and CTC would then be set up under these new circumstances. The point I am trying to get across is that part of the confusion stems from ingrained habits. The workflow, in the mind of Chebukati(and yours too) remain the same as pre-Kiai, even though that is not the optimal way to implement the law.
Chebu obeyed Kiai Case, no verification. If you watched the clips I shared yesterday and the SCOK judgement, they either are dumb or were too casual to appreciate what Kiai case did away with...explains why they charged Chebu with failure to verify
You are trying to beat SCOK at obfuscation because it hurts absolving Chebu..ok!
That partly explains your problem with the whole question. Conflating Chebu's confusion for vindication. Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Fixed that for ya.
Maraga: you never verified
Kiai did not forbid Chebukati and NTC from working in concert with CTC to verify.
Yes. It is final. In concert with means together with.
Admittedly Chebukati shares your limited imagination. Blame the ingrained habit I mention earlier on this thread.
Kiai does not forbid him from tallying and verifying 34As against 32Bs. His lack of imagination does. The man is paid millions to make himself useful and the best he can do is tell the world he doesn’t know his job.
A typo. It should say Kiai does forbid him from tallying and verifying 34As against 34Bs.
Correct. He’s forbidden from verification;
It cannot be denied that the Chairperson of the appellant has a significant constitutional role under Sub- Article (10) of Article 138 as the authority with the ultimate mandate of making the declaration that brings to finality the presidential election process. Of course before he makes that declaration his role is to accurately tally all the results exactly as received from the 290 returning officers country-wide, without adding, subtracting, multiplying or dividing any number contained in the two forms from the constituency tallying centre. If any verification or confirmation is anticipated, it has to relate only to confirmation and verification that the candidate to be declared elected president has met the threshold set under Article 138(4), by receiving more than half of all the votes cast in that election; and at least twenty- five per cent of the votes cast in each of more than half of the counties.QuoteNTC and CTC both receive copies of transmitted 34As. Chebukati and CTC could compare their respective copies of 34As for differences, existence etc. If they check out, CTC is allowed to include them in their tally. Chebukati could also give a green light to CTCs to transmit their tally. This is one workflow that can allow him to verify 34As for purposes of creating correct 34Bs, make himself useful and still satisfy Kiai.
Morbid nonsense. Chebu generates 34B and then sends them to CTC to declare before sending them back.
He does that in your limited imagination.
Chebukati and CTC could compare their respective copies of 34As for differences, existence etc. If they check out, CTC is allowed to include them in their tally.
1. NTC and CTC receive 34As simultaneously
2. NTC resends their 34As to NTC for Chebu to ‘compare for differences,existence etc’
3. If they ‘check out’ (why would they not?), CTC generates 34B and declares
4. CTC forwards to NTC the declared 34Bs.
how would NTC ensure CTC used the ‘verified’ and certified 34As? Check again the 34Bs against the previously sent 34As,right?
Go slow on glue and weed
You are getting there. Slow, but perceptible progress; unlearning bad habits is hard. Chebukati is not forbidden(by any law or ruling) from taking part in verifying in any fashion before transmission of 34Bs to NTC. After transmission of the 34B to NTC it is final; he can only do threshold verification. Chebukati can satisfy 39(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK. Easily. The key misconception is the notion that Chebukati lacks access or control of the information and activities at the CTC. He does not.You forgot all I taught you
You are getting there. Slow, but perceptible progress; unlearning bad habits is hard. Chebukati is not forbidden(by any law or ruling) from taking part in verifying in any fashion before transmission of 34Bs to NTC. After transmission of the 34B to NTC it is final; he can only do threshold verification. Chebukati can satisfy 39(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK. Easily. The key misconception is the notion that Chebukati lacks access or control of the information and activities at the CTC. He does not.You forgot all I taught you
39(1C)(b) is unconstitutional to the extent it means anything other than confirming constitutional threshold. Kiai Case held that the amendment to Regulations entailing verification at NTC are mischief and calculated to circumvent the matter before the court.
...the appellant issued a gazette supplement, being Legal Notice No. 72 of 21st April, 2017, making drastic amendments to the Elections (General) Regulations 2012, whose effect was clearly to render impotent and circumvent the declaration by the High Court of the inconsistency with the Constitution of section 39(2) and (3) of the Act and regulations 83(2) and 87(2)(c)......
...The new regulation 87 specifies that upon receipt of Form 34A from the constituency returning officers the Chairperson of the appellant shall “verify the results against Forms 34A and 34B received from the constituency returning officer at the national tallying centre”.
The controversial regulations 83(2) and 87(2) were not affected by the amendments, and the object is not difficult to see. The High Court having found those regulations to be inconsistent with the Constitution, it was in bad faith for the appellant to re-enact them while pursuing this appeal....
Digest that
After that digest the nonsense of mirror CTCs at NTCs just to comply with an unconstitutional clause
And finally, tell me what ‘access or control of the information and activities’ at the Polling Station Chebu has,yet its results are equally final :lolz:
If Kiai case is unintelligible then get someone to convert it to Braille or hieroglyphs and go through it :DYou are getting there. Slow, but perceptible progress; unlearning bad habits is hard. Chebukati is not forbidden(by any law or ruling) from taking part in verifying in any fashion before transmission of 34Bs to NTC. After transmission of the 34B to NTC it is final; he can only do threshold verification. Chebukati can satisfy 39(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK. Easily. The key misconception is the notion that Chebukati lacks access or control of the information and activities at the CTC. He does not.You forgot all I taught you
39(1C)(b) is unconstitutional to the extent it means anything other than confirming constitutional threshold. Kiai Case held that the amendment to Regulations entailing verification at NTC are mischief and calculated to circumvent the matter before the court.
...the appellant issued a gazette supplement, being Legal Notice No. 72 of 21st April, 2017, making drastic amendments to the Elections (General) Regulations 2012, whose effect was clearly to render impotent and circumvent the declaration by the High Court of the inconsistency with the Constitution of section 39(2) and (3) of the Act and regulations 83(2) and 87(2)(c)......
...The new regulation 87 specifies that upon receipt of Form 34A from the constituency returning officers the Chairperson of the appellant shall “verify the results against Forms 34A and 34B received from the constituency returning officer at the national tallying centre”.
The controversial regulations 83(2) and 87(2) were not affected by the amendments, and the object is not difficult to see. The High Court having found those regulations to be inconsistent with the Constitution, it was in bad faith for the appellant to re-enact them while pursuing this appeal....
Digest that
After that digest the nonsense of mirror CTCs at NTCs just to comply with an unconstitutional clause
And finally, tell me what ‘access or control of the information and activities’ at the Polling Station Chebu has,yet its results are equally final :lolz:
A slight error. I meant 39(1c). It should read Chebukati can satisfy 39(1)(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK. Easily.
Instead of all this unintelligible stuff, can you specifically point out which law or regulation prohibits Chebukati from verifying 34Bs before their final transmission to NTC?
If Kiai case is unintelligible then get someone to convert it to Braille or hieroglyphs and go through it :DYou are getting there. Slow, but perceptible progress; unlearning bad habits is hard. Chebukati is not forbidden(by any law or ruling) from taking part in verifying in any fashion before transmission of 34Bs to NTC. After transmission of the 34B to NTC it is final; he can only do threshold verification. Chebukati can satisfy 39(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK. Easily. The key misconception is the notion that Chebukati lacks access or control of the information and activities at the CTC. He does not.You forgot all I taught you
39(1C)(b) is unconstitutional to the extent it means anything other than confirming constitutional threshold. Kiai Case held that the amendment to Regulations entailing verification at NTC are mischief and calculated to circumvent the matter before the court.
...the appellant issued a gazette supplement, being Legal Notice No. 72 of 21st April, 2017, making drastic amendments to the Elections (General) Regulations 2012, whose effect was clearly to render impotent and circumvent the declaration by the High Court of the inconsistency with the Constitution of section 39(2) and (3) of the Act and regulations 83(2) and 87(2)(c)......
...The new regulation 87 specifies that upon receipt of Form 34A from the constituency returning officers the Chairperson of the appellant shall “verify the results against Forms 34A and 34B received from the constituency returning officer at the national tallying centre”.
The controversial regulations 83(2) and 87(2) were not affected by the amendments, and the object is not difficult to see. The High Court having found those regulations to be inconsistent with the Constitution, it was in bad faith for the appellant to re-enact them while pursuing this appeal....
Digest that
After that digest the nonsense of mirror CTCs at NTCs just to comply with an unconstitutional clause
And finally, tell me what ‘access or control of the information and activities’ at the Polling Station Chebu has,yet its results are equally final :lolz:
A slight error. I meant 39(1c). It should read Chebukati can satisfy 39(1)(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK. Easily.
Instead of all this unintelligible stuff, can you specifically point out which law or regulation prohibits Chebukati from verifying 34Bs before their final transmission to NTC?
Because you can’t verify a 34B that has YET to be generatedIf Kiai case is unintelligible then get someone to convert it to Braille or hieroglyphs and go through it :DYou are getting there. Slow, but perceptible progress; unlearning bad habits is hard. Chebukati is not forbidden(by any law or ruling) from taking part in verifying in any fashion before transmission of 34Bs to NTC. After transmission of the 34B to NTC it is final; he can only do threshold verification. Chebukati can satisfy 39(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK. Easily. The key misconception is the notion that Chebukati lacks access or control of the information and activities at the CTC. He does not.You forgot all I taught you
39(1C)(b) is unconstitutional to the extent it means anything other than confirming constitutional threshold. Kiai Case held that the amendment to Regulations entailing verification at NTC are mischief and calculated to circumvent the matter before the court.
...the appellant issued a gazette supplement, being Legal Notice No. 72 of 21st April, 2017, making drastic amendments to the Elections (General) Regulations 2012, whose effect was clearly to render impotent and circumvent the declaration by the High Court of the inconsistency with the Constitution of section 39(2) and (3) of the Act and regulations 83(2) and 87(2)(c)......
...The new regulation 87 specifies that upon receipt of Form 34A from the constituency returning officers the Chairperson of the appellant shall “verify the results against Forms 34A and 34B received from the constituency returning officer at the national tallying centre”.
The controversial regulations 83(2) and 87(2) were not affected by the amendments, and the object is not difficult to see. The High Court having found those regulations to be inconsistent with the Constitution, it was in bad faith for the appellant to re-enact them while pursuing this appeal....
Digest that
After that digest the nonsense of mirror CTCs at NTCs just to comply with an unconstitutional clause
And finally, tell me what ‘access or control of the information and activities’ at the Polling Station Chebu has,yet its results are equally final :lolz:
A slight error. I meant 39(1c). It should read Chebukati can satisfy 39(1)(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK. Easily.
Instead of all this unintelligible stuff, can you specifically point out which law or regulation prohibits Chebukati from verifying 34Bs before their final transmission to NTC?
But the Kiai case forbids him from doing 34A type verification after transmission of 34Bs. It does not prevent him from doing it before the 34B is created.
Because you can’t verify a 34B that has YET to be generatedIf Kiai case is unintelligible then get someone to convert it to Braille or hieroglyphs and go through it :DYou are getting there. Slow, but perceptible progress; unlearning bad habits is hard. Chebukati is not forbidden(by any law or ruling) from taking part in verifying in any fashion before transmission of 34Bs to NTC. After transmission of the 34B to NTC it is final; he can only do threshold verification. Chebukati can satisfy 39(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK. Easily. The key misconception is the notion that Chebukati lacks access or control of the information and activities at the CTC. He does not.You forgot all I taught you
39(1C)(b) is unconstitutional to the extent it means anything other than confirming constitutional threshold. Kiai Case held that the amendment to Regulations entailing verification at NTC are mischief and calculated to circumvent the matter before the court.
...the appellant issued a gazette supplement, being Legal Notice No. 72 of 21st April, 2017, making drastic amendments to the Elections (General) Regulations 2012, whose effect was clearly to render impotent and circumvent the declaration by the High Court of the inconsistency with the Constitution of section 39(2) and (3) of the Act and regulations 83(2) and 87(2)(c)......
...The new regulation 87 specifies that upon receipt of Form 34A from the constituency returning officers the Chairperson of the appellant shall “verify the results against Forms 34A and 34B received from the constituency returning officer at the national tallying centre”.
The controversial regulations 83(2) and 87(2) were not affected by the amendments, and the object is not difficult to see. The High Court having found those regulations to be inconsistent with the Constitution, it was in bad faith for the appellant to re-enact them while pursuing this appeal....
Digest that
After that digest the nonsense of mirror CTCs at NTCs just to comply with an unconstitutional clause
And finally, tell me what ‘access or control of the information and activities’ at the Polling Station Chebu has,yet its results are equally final :lolz:
A slight error. I meant 39(1c). It should read Chebukati can satisfy 39(1)(c), the Kiai ruling and SCOK. Easily.
Instead of all this unintelligible stuff, can you specifically point out which law or regulation prohibits Chebukati from verifying 34Bs before their final transmission to NTC?
But the Kiai case forbids him from doing 34A type verification after transmission of 34Bs. It does not prevent him from doing it before the 34B is created.
Termie,
Say Starehe has 600 polling stations.
1700H all stations are shut and counting begins
Between 1800H and 2100H, all simultaneously transmit 34As to CTC and NTC.
Could you please elaborate on what flows next if we followed your suggestion?
Your suggestion makes zero sense and you must have seen that hence you shy away from it...it is impractical if not outright stupid.Termie,
Say Starehe has 600 polling stations.
1700H all stations are shut and counting begins
Between 1800H and 2100H, all simultaneously transmit 34As to CTC and NTC.
Could you please elaborate on what flows next if we followed your suggestion?
The specific workflow is not important for the point I am making.
What is important is what is permitted.Yes, this is what I aksd for and you can’t apply it to a practical example.
Even then, Constituency ROs are employees of IEBC. They are basically doing Chebukati's bidding at the constituency level. If they verify and tally 34As, then he(Chebukati) has done his job.This is exactly why Kiai Case took away Chebu’s verification and vested it with ROs. They read the regulations and laws of the process right from after voting to CTC and said it was so thorough that only some deranged moron would entertain second guessing the process.
NTC has a bigger picture view of what is going on and can therefore determine certain things like whether a given constituency would not make a difference in the overall outcome.NTC has representatives at CTC and polling station known as ROs and POs. They are given a job, a script all under the glare of agents,Observers,monitors bla de bla,and Chebu trusts them to do just that.
Your suggestion makes zero sense and you must have seen that hence you shy away from it...it is impractical if not outright stupid.Termie,
Say Starehe has 600 polling stations.
1700H all stations are shut and counting begins
Between 1800H and 2100H, all simultaneously transmit 34As to CTC and NTC.
Could you please elaborate on what flows next if we followed your suggestion?
The specific workflow is not important for the point I am making.
Nothing so far you have suggested is worth even entertaining.QuoteWhat is important is what is permitted.Yes, this is what I aksd for and you can’t apply it to a practical example.QuoteEven then, Constituency ROs are employees of IEBC. They are basically doing Chebukati's bidding at the constituency level. If they verify and tally 34As, then he(Chebukati) has done his job.This is exactly why Kiai Case took away Chebu’s verification and vested it with ROs. They read the regulations and laws of the process right from after voting to CTC and said it was so thorough that only some deranged moron would entertain second guessing the process.
They said if a Chebu can’t for some reasons trust the guys he has assigned the job then he should hire and train competent dudes.
But you don’t want that, you want him to hire morons and then REPEAT the exact job he has assigned them just to be sure it ‘checks out’. You may as well suggest each station live streams the counting to NTC for supervision so as to have some ‘live’ or real time verificationQuoteNTC has a bigger picture view of what is going on and can therefore determine certain things like whether a given constituency would not make a difference in the overall outcome.NTC has representatives at CTC and polling station known as ROs and POs. They are given a job, a script all under the glare of agents,Observers,monitors bla de bla,and Chebu trusts them to do just that.
138. (1) If only one candidate for President is nominated, that candidate shall be declared elected.
(2) If two or more candidates for President are nominated, an election shall be held in each constituency.
(3) In a presidential election—
(a) all persons registered as voters for the purposes of parliamentary elections are entitled to vote;
(b) the poll shall be taken by secret ballot on the day specified in Article 101 (1) at the time, in the places and in the manner prescribed under an Act of Parliament; and
(c) after counting the votes in the polling stations, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission shall tally and verify the count and declare the result.
Section 39(1C) of the Elections Act
“For purposes of a presidential election, the Commission shall-
(a) Electronically transmit, in the prescribed form, the tabulated results of an election for the President from a polling station to the constituency tallying centre and to the national tallying centre;
(b) Tally and verify the results received at the national tallying centre ; and
(c) Publish the polling result forms on an online public portal maintained by the Commission.
It cannot be denied that the Chairperson of the appellant has a significant constitutional role under Sub- Article (10) of Article 138 as the authority with the ultimate mandate of making the declaration that brings to finality the presidential election process. Of course before he makes that declaration his role is to accurately tally all the results exactly as received from the 290 returning officers country-wide, without adding, subtracting, multiplying or dividing any number contained in the two forms from the constituency tallying centre. If any verification or confirmation is anticipated, it has to relate only to confirmation and verification that the candidate to be declared elected president has met the threshold set under Article 138(4), by receiving more than half of all the votes cast in that election; and at least twenty- five per cent of the votes cast in each of more than half of the counties.
Termie,
You ask a question and answer it yourself.
I asked you to read all I have taught you and then Kiai case. But if I must repeat to tickle you I will
1. Note katiba talks of Commission not Chebu. The case emphasized on this distinction.
2. Commission is well represented boh at polling station and CTC meaning whatever goes down there is performed by the commission
3. Th constitutional duty to verify was held be fully executed by processes in the polling station and CTC hence no further verification is anticipated at NTC other than that what is in bold and in red.
4. While Elections Act speak of the chairperson tallying and verifying, the amended Regulations amplify/give life to section 39 (1C) by explaining that the verification entails comparing 34Bs against 34As. The case held that these amendments to the regulations were circumventing matters before the case by reenacting the very same exercise (confirmation,verification) Chebu was forbidden from doing.
So what laws says Chebu can't verify? Decision of High Court and Court of Appeals aka Kiai Case
It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him. I don't see it. Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.
It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him. I don't see it. Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.
From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?
It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him. I don't see it. Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.
From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?
I have read Kiai and disagree with your interpretation. Consider that possibility.
It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him. I don't see it. Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.
From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?
I have read Kiai and disagree with your interpretation. Consider that possibility.
I asked a simple question and you can’t answer it because either you never read or you missed it and any answer you give will show this.
Kiai Case is not some legal esoterica open to infinite interpretations
Give it another shot
Here’s the link;
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/ (http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/)
Bleating the same nonsense don’t add any value to it.It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him. I don't see it. Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.
From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?
I have read Kiai and disagree with your interpretation. Consider that possibility.
I asked a simple question and you can’t answer it because either you never read or you missed it and any answer you give will show this.
Kiai Case is not some legal esoterica open to infinite interpretations
Give it another shot
Here’s the link;
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/ (http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/)
There is nowhere in the ruling where Chebukati is forbidden from verifying 34As to generate 34Bs. He can do it if he chooses. After 34Bs, his hands are tied. Your whine boils down to not liking that fact. It's not an argument.
Bleating the same nonsense don’t add any value to it.It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him. I don't see it. Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.
From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?
I have read Kiai and disagree with your interpretation. Consider that possibility.
I asked a simple question and you can’t answer it because either you never read or you missed it and any answer you give will show this.
Kiai Case is not some legal esoterica open to infinite interpretations
Give it another shot
Here’s the link;
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/ (http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/)
There is nowhere in the ruling where Chebukati is forbidden from verifying 34As to generate 34Bs. He can do it if he chooses. After 34Bs, his hands are tied. Your whine boils down to not liking that fact. It's not an argument.
FYI
It’s plain silly to state ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’.
What exactly is ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’?
If they are not valid then they are not 34As in the first place. So if you mean checking whether the scans are images of forms 34A or used tea bags, then you have a point except it is hopelessly truismBleating the same nonsense don’t add any value to it.It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him. I don't see it. Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.
From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?
I have read Kiai and disagree with your interpretation. Consider that possibility.
I asked a simple question and you can’t answer it because either you never read or you missed it and any answer you give will show this.
Kiai Case is not some legal esoterica open to infinite interpretations
Give it another shot
Here’s the link;
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/ (http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/)
There is nowhere in the ruling where Chebukati is forbidden from verifying 34As to generate 34Bs. He can do it if he chooses. After 34Bs, his hands are tied. Your whine boils down to not liking that fact. It's not an argument.
FYI
It’s plain silly to state ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’.
What exactly is ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’?
That is why you should first find the law, then bleat.
Verifying 34As to generate 34Bs? You make sure the 34As are valid. That they meet certain requirements. Then you include them in the tally. Otherwise you don't include them.
If they are not valid then they are not 34As in the first place. So if you mean checking whether the scans are images of forms 34A or used tea bags, then you have a point except it is hopelessly truismBleating the same nonsense don’t add any value to it.It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him. I don't see it. Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.
From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?
I have read Kiai and disagree with your interpretation. Consider that possibility.
I asked a simple question and you can’t answer it because either you never read or you missed it and any answer you give will show this.
Kiai Case is not some legal esoterica open to infinite interpretations
Give it another shot
Here’s the link;
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/ (http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/)
There is nowhere in the ruling where Chebukati is forbidden from verifying 34As to generate 34Bs. He can do it if he chooses. After 34Bs, his hands are tied. Your whine boils down to not liking that fact. It's not an argument.
FYI
It’s plain silly to state ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’.
What exactly is ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’?
That is why you should first find the law, then bleat.
Verifying 34As to generate 34Bs? You make sure the 34As are valid. That they meet certain requirements. Then you include them in the tally. Otherwise you don't include them.
The commission makes sure it is done by hiring ROs and POs,and not tasking Chebu personally to verify.If they are not valid then they are not 34As in the first place. So if you mean checking whether the scans are images of forms 34A or used tea bags, then you have a point except it is hopelessly truismBleating the same nonsense don’t add any value to it.It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him. I don't see it. Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.
From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?
I have read Kiai and disagree with your interpretation. Consider that possibility.
I asked a simple question and you can’t answer it because either you never read or you missed it and any answer you give will show this.
Kiai Case is not some legal esoterica open to infinite interpretations
Give it another shot
Here’s the link;
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/ (http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/)
There is nowhere in the ruling where Chebukati is forbidden from verifying 34As to generate 34Bs. He can do it if he chooses. After 34Bs, his hands are tied. Your whine boils down to not liking that fact. It's not an argument.
FYI
It’s plain silly to state ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’.
What exactly is ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’?
That is why you should first find the law, then bleat.
Verifying 34As to generate 34Bs? You make sure the 34As are valid. That they meet certain requirements. Then you include them in the tally. Otherwise you don't include them.
There is no law on earth that prevents Chebukati from making sure that is done.
The commission makes sure it is done by hiring ROs and POs,and not tasking Chebu personally to verify.If they are not valid then they are not 34As in the first place. So if you mean checking whether the scans are images of forms 34A or used tea bags, then you have a point except it is hopelessly truismBleating the same nonsense don’t add any value to it.It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him. I don't see it. Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.
From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?
I have read Kiai and disagree with your interpretation. Consider that possibility.
I asked a simple question and you can’t answer it because either you never read or you missed it and any answer you give will show this.
Kiai Case is not some legal esoterica open to infinite interpretations
Give it another shot
Here’s the link;
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/ (http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/)
There is nowhere in the ruling where Chebukati is forbidden from verifying 34As to generate 34Bs. He can do it if he chooses. After 34Bs, his hands are tied. Your whine boils down to not liking that fact. It's not an argument.
FYI
It’s plain silly to state ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’.
What exactly is ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’?
That is why you should first find the law, then bleat.
Verifying 34As to generate 34Bs? You make sure the 34As are valid. That they meet certain requirements. Then you include them in the tally. Otherwise you don't include them.
There is no law on earth that prevents Chebukati from making sure that is done.
Kiai held Chebu can’t and shouldn’t verify the already verified and declared results by those below him
Nor did it forbid Chebu from ensuring that vote counting started after voting stopped.The commission makes sure it is done by hiring ROs and POs,and not tasking Chebu personally to verify.If they are not valid then they are not 34As in the first place. So if you mean checking whether the scans are images of forms 34A or used tea bags, then you have a point except it is hopelessly truismBleating the same nonsense don’t add any value to it.It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him. I don't see it. Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.
From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?
I have read Kiai and disagree with your interpretation. Consider that possibility.
I asked a simple question and you can’t answer it because either you never read or you missed it and any answer you give will show this.
Kiai Case is not some legal esoterica open to infinite interpretations
Give it another shot
Here’s the link;
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/ (http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/)
There is nowhere in the ruling where Chebukati is forbidden from verifying 34As to generate 34Bs. He can do it if he chooses. After 34Bs, his hands are tied. Your whine boils down to not liking that fact. It's not an argument.
FYI
It’s plain silly to state ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’.
What exactly is ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’?
That is why you should first find the law, then bleat.
Verifying 34As to generate 34Bs? You make sure the 34As are valid. That they meet certain requirements. Then you include them in the tally. Otherwise you don't include them.
There is no law on earth that prevents Chebukati from making sure that is done.
Kiai held Chebu can’t and shouldn’t verify the already verified and declared results by those below him
Yes. Also Kiai did not forbid Chebukati from ensuring that the ROs and POs generate 34Bs from valid 34As. No they did not.
Nor did it forbid Chebu from ensuring that vote counting started after voting stopped.The commission makes sure it is done by hiring ROs and POs,and not tasking Chebu personally to verify.If they are not valid then they are not 34As in the first place. So if you mean checking whether the scans are images of forms 34A or used tea bags, then you have a point except it is hopelessly truismBleating the same nonsense don’t add any value to it.It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him. I don't see it. Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.
From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?
I have read Kiai and disagree with your interpretation. Consider that possibility.
I asked a simple question and you can’t answer it because either you never read or you missed it and any answer you give will show this.
Kiai Case is not some legal esoterica open to infinite interpretations
Give it another shot
Here’s the link;
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/ (http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/)
There is nowhere in the ruling where Chebukati is forbidden from verifying 34As to generate 34Bs. He can do it if he chooses. After 34Bs, his hands are tied. Your whine boils down to not liking that fact. It's not an argument.
FYI
It’s plain silly to state ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’.
What exactly is ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’?
That is why you should first find the law, then bleat.
Verifying 34As to generate 34Bs? You make sure the 34As are valid. That they meet certain requirements. Then you include them in the tally. Otherwise you don't include them.
There is no law on earth that prevents Chebukati from making sure that is done.
Kiai held Chebu can’t and shouldn’t verify the already verified and declared results by those below him
Yes. Also Kiai did not forbid Chebukati from ensuring that the ROs and POs generate 34Bs from valid 34As. No they did not.
Kiai case did not forbid Chebu from ensuring that votes counted had to be valid. Chebu did not ensure this because he had no live stream from each of the 40K stations. He just trusted his 40K ROs. He failedNor did it forbid Chebu from ensuring that vote counting started after voting stopped.The commission makes sure it is done by hiring ROs and POs,and not tasking Chebu personally to verify.If they are not valid then they are not 34As in the first place. So if you mean checking whether the scans are images of forms 34A or used tea bags, then you have a point except it is hopelessly truismBleating the same nonsense don’t add any value to it.It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him. I don't see it. Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.
From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?
I have read Kiai and disagree with your interpretation. Consider that possibility.
I asked a simple question and you can’t answer it because either you never read or you missed it and any answer you give will show this.
Kiai Case is not some legal esoterica open to infinite interpretations
Give it another shot
Here’s the link;
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/ (http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/)
There is nowhere in the ruling where Chebukati is forbidden from verifying 34As to generate 34Bs. He can do it if he chooses. After 34Bs, his hands are tied. Your whine boils down to not liking that fact. It's not an argument.
FYI
It’s plain silly to state ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’.
What exactly is ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’?
That is why you should first find the law, then bleat.
Verifying 34As to generate 34Bs? You make sure the 34As are valid. That they meet certain requirements. Then you include them in the tally. Otherwise you don't include them.
There is no law on earth that prevents Chebukati from making sure that is done.
Kiai held Chebu can’t and shouldn’t verify the already verified and declared results by those below him
Yes. Also Kiai did not forbid Chebukati from ensuring that the ROs and POs generate 34Bs from valid 34As. No they did not.
Yeah. That too. He is wasting the court's time. In any case there is a new law coming that might allow him to get away with what was illegal in the old.
Kiai case did not forbid Chebu from ensuring that votes counted had to be valid. Chebu did not ensure this because he had no live stream from each of the 40K stations. He just trusted his 40K ROs. He failedNor did it forbid Chebu from ensuring that vote counting started after voting stopped.The commission makes sure it is done by hiring ROs and POs,and not tasking Chebu personally to verify.If they are not valid then they are not 34As in the first place. So if you mean checking whether the scans are images of forms 34A or used tea bags, then you have a point except it is hopelessly truismBleating the same nonsense don’t add any value to it.It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him. I don't see it. Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.
From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?
I have read Kiai and disagree with your interpretation. Consider that possibility.
I asked a simple question and you can’t answer it because either you never read or you missed it and any answer you give will show this.
Kiai Case is not some legal esoterica open to infinite interpretations
Give it another shot
Here’s the link;
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/ (http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/)
There is nowhere in the ruling where Chebukati is forbidden from verifying 34As to generate 34Bs. He can do it if he chooses. After 34Bs, his hands are tied. Your whine boils down to not liking that fact. It's not an argument.
FYI
It’s plain silly to state ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’.
What exactly is ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’?
That is why you should first find the law, then bleat.
Verifying 34As to generate 34Bs? You make sure the 34As are valid. That they meet certain requirements. Then you include them in the tally. Otherwise you don't include them.
There is no law on earth that prevents Chebukati from making sure that is done.
Kiai held Chebu can’t and shouldn’t verify the already verified and declared results by those below him
Yes. Also Kiai did not forbid Chebukati from ensuring that the ROs and POs generate 34Bs from valid 34As. No they did not.
Yeah. That too. He is wasting the court's time. In any case there is a new law coming that might allow him to get away with what was illegal in the old.
It’s moronic to insinuate their because the chairperson did not personally supervise a activity he abdicated his constitutional dutyKiai case did not forbid Chebu from ensuring that votes counted had to be valid. Chebu did not ensure this because he had no live stream from each of the 40K stations. He just trusted his 40K ROs. He failedNor did it forbid Chebu from ensuring that vote counting started after voting stopped.The commission makes sure it is done by hiring ROs and POs,and not tasking Chebu personally to verify.If they are not valid then they are not 34As in the first place. So if you mean checking whether the scans are images of forms 34A or used tea bags, then you have a point except it is hopelessly truismBleating the same nonsense don’t add any value to it.It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him. I don't see it. Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.
From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?
I have read Kiai and disagree with your interpretation. Consider that possibility.
I asked a simple question and you can’t answer it because either you never read or you missed it and any answer you give will show this.
Kiai Case is not some legal esoterica open to infinite interpretations
Give it another shot
Here’s the link;
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/ (http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/)
There is nowhere in the ruling where Chebukati is forbidden from verifying 34As to generate 34Bs. He can do it if he chooses. After 34Bs, his hands are tied. Your whine boils down to not liking that fact. It's not an argument.
FYI
It’s plain silly to state ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’.
What exactly is ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’?
That is why you should first find the law, then bleat.
Verifying 34As to generate 34Bs? You make sure the 34As are valid. That they meet certain requirements. Then you include them in the tally. Otherwise you don't include them.
There is no law on earth that prevents Chebukati from making sure that is done.
Kiai held Chebu can’t and shouldn’t verify the already verified and declared results by those below him
Yes. Also Kiai did not forbid Chebukati from ensuring that the ROs and POs generate 34Bs from valid 34As. No they did not.
Yeah. That too. He is wasting the court's time. In any case there is a new law coming that might allow him to get away with what was illegal in the old.
Whatever peels your banana. When you find the law that prevents Chebukati from doing his work, you know where to find me.
It’s moronic to insinuate their because the chairperson did not personally supervise a activity he abdicated his constitutional dutyKiai case did not forbid Chebu from ensuring that votes counted had to be valid. Chebu did not ensure this because he had no live stream from each of the 40K stations. He just trusted his 40K ROs. He failedNor did it forbid Chebu from ensuring that vote counting started after voting stopped.The commission makes sure it is done by hiring ROs and POs,and not tasking Chebu personally to verify.If they are not valid then they are not 34As in the first place. So if you mean checking whether the scans are images of forms 34A or used tea bags, then you have a point except it is hopelessly truismBleating the same nonsense don’t add any value to it.It's rhetorical. Unless there is some new quirk in the laws that actually prevents him. I don't see it. Kiai only prevents him from modifying the completed forms.If you can’t or won’t read Kiai, you will keep on running in circles. I won’t be part of that.
From Kiai Case,what was IEBC’s understanding of the term ‘verification’?
I have read Kiai and disagree with your interpretation. Consider that possibility.
I asked a simple question and you can’t answer it because either you never read or you missed it and any answer you give will show this.
Kiai Case is not some legal esoterica open to infinite interpretations
Give it another shot
Here’s the link;
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/ (http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/137601/)
There is nowhere in the ruling where Chebukati is forbidden from verifying 34As to generate 34Bs. He can do it if he chooses. After 34Bs, his hands are tied. Your whine boils down to not liking that fact. It's not an argument.
FYI
It’s plain silly to state ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’.
What exactly is ‘verifying 34As to generate 34Bs’?
That is why you should first find the law, then bleat.
Verifying 34As to generate 34Bs? You make sure the 34As are valid. That they meet certain requirements. Then you include them in the tally. Otherwise you don't include them.
There is no law on earth that prevents Chebukati from making sure that is done.
Kiai held Chebu can’t and shouldn’t verify the already verified and declared results by those below him
Yes. Also Kiai did not forbid Chebukati from ensuring that the ROs and POs generate 34Bs from valid 34As. No they did not.
Yeah. That too. He is wasting the court's time. In any case there is a new law coming that might allow him to get away with what was illegal in the old.
Whatever peels your banana. When you find the law that prevents Chebukati from doing his work, you know where to find me.
For those who have never read Kiai for whatever reasons especially fear of changing their worldview :)
One of the grounds for appealing the High Court decision was the meaning of the word ‘verification’. IEBC assumed took an interesting definition;
Moving on to the second ground, the appellant submitted that Article 138 (3) (c) requires it to verify the count before declaring the result of the presidential election and for that purpose its chairperson is required to tally and verify the count from all polling stations before declaring the result. In its view, the legal definition of the phrase “to verify” is “to prove to be true; to confirm or establish the truth or to authenticate” and not to alter and/or vary results as was interpreted by the High Court.
NOTE
Article 138 (3) (c)
(C) after counting the votes in the polling stations, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission shall tally and verify the count and declare the result.
IEBC held that this mandate to verify was discharged by the chairperson at NTC
PREDICTION: Supreme Court to rule that there is nothing to clarify in their ruling, arguing it was very clear
— -Dennis Itumbi, CBS (@OleItumbi) October 17, 2017
PREDICTION: Supreme Court to rule that there is nothing to clarify in their ruling, arguing it was very clear
— -Dennis Itumbi, CBS (@OleItumbi) October 17, 2017
Chebu should note the errors if at all between 34A and 34Bs, and NOTIFY the candidates
So technically it’s possible to declare an outright winner with a caveat that the errors in the results suggest there’s no outright winner?
Chebukati not allowed to change forms 34A during "verification"...sorry rigging.
The thieving bastards are being cornered pole pole.
Chebukati not allowed to change forms 34A during "verification"...sorry rigging.
The thieving bastards are being cornered pole pole.
He sought to verify without any alteration but High Court denied him this
He was not asking the court to tell him nothing, he held that he had a duty to verify albeit without changing, but the court threw that out as well. ‘No verification’ they saidChebukati not allowed to change forms 34A during "verification"...sorry rigging.
The thieving bastards are being cornered pole pole.
He sought to verify without any alteration but High Court denied him this
He didn't need the court to tel him that verification is checking and not changing. That was just Jubilee's reading of verification...
Prof Ojwang - seem to be critiquing the majority decision.
The Commission has received hard copy results from 256 constituencies. 235 have been verified and posted.
— IEBC (@IEBCKenya) October 29, 2017