The Supreme Court will this morning hear
President Uhuru Kenyatta’s response to a consolidated petition
challenging his re-election on October 26.
Six judges of the apex court had indicated that Mr Kenyatta would have two hours to rebut the allegations made by the petitions.
AUKOT
The
president is represented by lawyers Fred Ngatia, his lead lawyer, Ken
Ogetto, Kimani Kiragu, Katwa Kigen, Mellisa Ng’ania, Tom Macharia,
Njoroge Regeru and Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi.
Once
he completes his arguments, judges David Maraga, Philomena Mwilu,
Jackton Ojwang’, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u and Isaac Lenaola will
hear the Attorney-General Githu Muigai and Dr EKuru Aukot, who were
admitted in the petition as interested parties.
The
AG and Dr Aukot will only be allowed to argue for 30 minutes each
before the three petitioners— Mr Harun Mwau, Njonjo Mue and Khelef
Khalifa— make their replies.
The interested parties’ arguments will be restricted to points of law.
In the afternoon, the court is expected to resume hearing for parties to make comments on the access of forms.
Lawyer
Harun Ndubi had on Wednesday night accused the Independent Electoral
and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) of coming up with rules beyond the
court’s order.
He said the commission
had asked the agents checking the forms at Anniversary Towers to
produce their original IDs and sign a register before being granted
access.
IEBC
He
further alleged that the commission had refused to allow the agents
enter the room with any documents, yet they wanted to compare what they
have with the original forms.
But Mr Ngatia said his team was comfortable with the rules.
The
lawyer said they were also apprehensive that strange forms might be
introduced during the exercise or original forms might be plucked from
the store.
The petitioners want the
election nullified, arguing that IEBC failed to adhere to the directives
of the court when it nullified the election of September 1.
Further
it is the petitioners’ argument that the IEBC failed to conduct the
polls in compliance with the Constitution and the applicable laws.
The commission, however, argues that it carried out the exercise as directed by the court and adhered to all the laws.
The poll, IEBC adds, was conducted under extremely difficult circumstances.
No comments :
Post a Comment