Kenya’s Odinga challenges election result ‘criminality’ in court

By Katharine Houreld and George Obulutsa

NAIROBI (Reuters) -Veteran opposition chief Raila Odinga on Monday challenged Kenya’s presidential election ends in the Supreme Court docket and alleged the tally had concerned “criminality”, sharpening a political contest gripping East Africa’s powerhouse.

Within the petition, Odinga asks the court docket to nullify the vote’s final result on a number of grounds, together with a mismatch between the turnout figures and the end result, and alleges the election fee didn’t tally ballots from 27 constituencies, rendering the end result unverifiable and unaccountable.

“We have now sufficient proof to show the entire criminality that occurred,” Odinga instructed a information convention after the submitting. “We’re assured that ultimately, the reality can be revealed.”

That is Odinga’s fifth try on the presidency; he blamed a number of earlier losses on rigging. These disputes triggered violence that claimed greater than 100 lives in 2017 and greater than 1,200 lives in 2007.

Final week the election commissioner declared Odinga’s rival, Deputy President William Ruto, had received the Aug. 9 election by a slim margin, however 4 out of seven election commissioners dissented, saying the tallying of outcomes had not been clear.

The fee, its chairman and Ruto have 4 days to answer Odinga’s claims via court docket filings.

On Monday night, the fee stated safety personnel repulsed a bunch of what it stated had been goons armed with crude weapons who tried to assault its personnel.

Police spokesperson Bruno Isohi Shioso didn’t instantly reply to request for touch upon the incident.

Final week Odinga stated the outcomes had been a “travesty” however stated he would settle the dispute in court docket and urged supporters to stay peaceable. His supporters have stated the outcomes had been the end result of intentional fraud by election authorities. The election fee has denied any wrongdoing.

In 2017, the Supreme Court docket overturned the election end result and ordered a re-run, which Odinga boycotted, saying he had no religion within the election fee.

This time, Odinga is backed by the political institution. President Uhuru Kenyatta endorsed Odinga’s candidacy after falling out with Ruto after the final election.

At stake is management of East Africa’s wealthiest and most steady nation, house to regional headquarters for companies like Basic Electrical, Google and Uber. Kenya additionally offers peacekeepers for neighbouring Somalia and often hosts peace talks for different nations within the turbulent East Africa area.

The case can be heard by the seven-member Supreme Court docket and presided over by Martha Koome, Kenya’s first feminine chief justice, who was appointed by Kenyatta final 12 months.

The court docket will subsequent conduct a standing convention with all events to outline the listening to schedule and floor guidelines. The structure requires judges to problem their resolution inside 14 days of the lawsuit being filed.

As a result of tight schedule, it usually points a abstract judgment inside 14 days, adopted by extra thorough selections from every of the seven judges at a later date.

THE DISPUTE

One week in the past, electoral fee chairman Wafula Chebukati declared Ruto the winner with 50.49% of the vote in opposition to Odinga’s 48.5%.

However minutes earlier, his deputy Juliana Cherera had instructed media at a separate location that she and three different commissioners disowned the outcomes.

She stated the elections had been performed in a correct method – and most worldwide observers agreed – however that outcomes had been erroneously aggregated.

Public confusion reigned over the tallying after the Kenyan media suspended a depend of 46,229 polling-station degree outcomes with round 80% of the vote counted.

The election fee’s web site nonetheless doesn’t show the proper types for all 291 constituencies. In some circumstances, the shape is incomplete or solely partially loaded, making it inconceivable for the general public to substantiate the fee’s depend.

(Extra reporting by Duncan Miriri, Humphrey Malalo and Edwin Waita; Modifying by Cynthia Osterman)