![(r-l) President Uhuru Kenyatta, former Prime Minister Raila Odinga and President-Elect William Ruto at a past National Prayer Breakfast. [Photo/ NW]](https://businesstoday.co.ke/wp-content/plugins/phastpress/phast.php/c2VydmljZT1pbWFnZXMmc3JjPWh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGYnVzaW5lc3N0b2RheS5jby5rZSUyRndwLWNvbnRlbnQlMkZ1cGxvYWRzJTJGMjAyMiUyRjA5JTJGcnV0by1yYWlsYS5qcGcmY2FjaGVNYXJrZXI9MTY2MjM3MjUwNC01MTIzOCZ0b2tlbj05ZDIwZDRlYTk4NmNjY2Mx.q.jpg "ruto-raila")
The Supreme Court of Kenya on Monday, September 5 issued a summarized judgement on the Presidential Petition. Chief Justice Martha Koome noted that the full judgement by the seven-judge bench would be issued within 21 days.
The court upheld the declaration of William Ruto as President-elect. It was a unanimous decision.
On whether IEBC tech met verifiability, integrity and security requirements to guarantee accurate and verified results:
The Supreme Court found that the technology deployed by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), including the public results portal, biometric voter registration and results transmission system met the standards set in law.
The apex Court found that no credible evidence was presented of security breaches of the results transmission system as claimed by the petitioners or in the Court’s inspection of the system by the Registrar.
On the accuracy of Forms 34A on the public portal:
The court also stated that it found that the Forms 34A on the public portal were the same as the Forms 34A verified by agents at polling stations and presented at the national tallying centre.
On whether the postponement of some elections resulted in voter suppression to the detriment of the petitioners
The court found that there was no proof that the postponement of elections including Mombasa and Kakamega gubernatorial races was calculated to result in voter suppression to the detriment of Odinga.
On claims of ballot stuffing
The court found that not a single document had been presented to prove the claims of ballot stuffing to the detriment of Odinga. The claim, the Supreme Court noted, was based on a hypothesis.
On discrepancies in votes cast for different elective positions:
The Supreme Court stated that it was not persuaded that there were unexplained discrepancies between the votes cast for presidential candidates and other elective positions.
On the four IEBC commissioners who rejected ‘opaque’ results:
The Supreme Court observed that thee four commissioners who distanced themselves from the results moments before they were announced by Chebukati participated in the verification and tallying exercise until almost the end. The Court noted that they were present for much of the process and took turns announcing results. It also
The Supreme Court however found ‘serious malaise’ in the governance of the IEBC, and also put IEBC chair Chebukati on the spot for his silence at the time. It promised more details on the governance challenge at IEBC in the full judgement. It however stated that the confusing last-minute boardroom saga was not sufficient to nullify the election.
On whether Ruto truly met the 50%+1 votes cast threshhold to be declared President-elect:
The Supreme Court found that the petitioners did not present a water-tight case to justify the nullification of the election based on the votes threshold, stating that it found the IEBC numbers and rounding off to be correct.
