Saturday, June 1, 2013 – 00:00 — BY JOHN GITHONGO

Last Thursday, The Star published a seemingly innocuous piece titled ‘IEBC wants Political Parties Act amended’. The amendment, the report explained, was because the IEBC is now considering changing the way of “calculating funding for the parties”.

Currently, the Act ‘provides that political parties’ funding should be computed on the basis of election votes. The new proposed formula is based on the number of elected representatives that each party has.

“As a result, and unsurprisingly, political parties have been pushing the IEBC to hurry up with its final release of results ‘so that they can work out how much state funding they are entitled to”.

To date, however, the IEBC has not ‘finalised’ the exact figures from the March 4 election and “there are allegedly still substantial differences between the presidential and parliamentary numbers.”


The report carried what I, in hindsight, considered a startling revelation. One of the IEBC’s commissioners was recorded as having said, “We are having sleepless nights reconciling the presidential results and those of the other positions. Over a million votes must be reconciled with the others and if the requirement is not changed, then it will cast the IEBC in a negative light…”

The IEBC was thus reported to have devised three options that would resolve the impasse. The concern ‘of casting the IEBC in a negative light’ was a little rich. That said, the commissioner’s admission itself was deeply troubling about the overall integrity of the polls.

A million irregularly introduced ie rigged votes would take the overall result of the presidential election closer to the scientific pre-election opinion polls and the exit polls that have emerged since, like that from Harvard University that called a close race between Uhuru and Odinga.

Then, last weekend the Daily Nation carried a long interview with Raila Odinga in which he discussed both the elections and his future plans without a hint of bitterness. Here too my attention was captured by the remarks he was reported to have made:

But this idea that there were some areas where there was 95 per cent or 100 per cent turn-out is a myth. Because if you look at the records, the average turn-out was 72 per cent for county reps, for women reps, for MPs, for governors, for senators but only for the presidential 86 per cent. What accounts for that difference?… They were stuffing ballot papers and that was the evidence that we wanted to adduce in court that over one million people turned up for the ballot and only voted for the presidency and not for the others.”

Some of the top experts on election matters – both Kenyan and foreign – have been pleading ever more insistently for the IEBC to release the full results of elections held almost three months ago.

To them, this admission that essentially around one million more Kenyans voted for the presidential candidates but did not vote for any of the other offices (Governor, Senator, MP etc) was a bombshell. After all, none of the multiple teams of election observers noted what surely would have been difficult to miss: one million voters casting presidential ballots and deciding not to vote for any other of the offices.

Nor has IEBC reported five million spoilt votes spread out amongst the other five offices, which would have been the expected result if all these voters had somehow managed to cast only one of their allotted six ballots right – the other plausible explanation. So the one million ghosts in the books are a problem.


It is ironically comforting to many that the gut feeling that something slick, big and nasty was likely pulled off at the last election is seemingly now proving to be more and more likely correct.

This is notwithstanding the sometimes garbled reassuring statements by both local and foreign observers whose positions at the time were not backed up by what Kenyans saw with their own eyes. It is always a relief to realise you did not dream something up.

Little can be changed at this stage; we need to “move on” as Kenyans are being constantly urged to do. I am among those who believe national cohesion can only be achieved if a majority of Kenyans don’t believe in the malevolent ‘tyranny of numbers’ narrative that seems to have laid the ground for subsequent events.

To be blunt, it is important that the majority of Kenyans from all races and tribes believe that there are enough Gikuyus who don’t appear to ascribe to the conviction that one ethnic community must lord it over all others in perpetuity.

That so many are not convinced that this is the case is the source of the most furious resentments among non-Gikuyus – and the source of a rapidly dwindling interest in the project of nationhood – ironically at the very historical moment that the country celebrates a significant milestone – 50 years since the end of colonial rule.

All this brings us to grips with our present condition, for better or for worse. That we reached here without the kind of violence we saw in 2008 is a good thing. Second, we acknowledge the reality that Kenya has a legally sworn-in head of state; cabinet secretaries and other functionaries are being appointed.

We have a government and matters of everyday life can proceed. On the economic front, the government has been making all the correct noises. It is now in an enviable position of translating its pre-election promises to reality – ensuring that our growth delivers jobs for the youth, for example.

Potentially exciting times indeed, what with the huge economic potential promised by the combined coincidence of a critical mass of energetic, young, educated and entrepreneurial African ‘human capital’; massive external economic interest in Africa; the discovery of a range of minerals etc – there is indeed great promise that Kenya could be on the verge of a take-off to that dream envisioned at independence.

However, there still remains important cleaning up to do with regard to our election processes and institutions. Indeed, I would argue, we need to rethink the first-past-the-post system in its entirety.

It has brought us much grief: a more volatile polity; tribal division compounded by festering anger and generally less social cohesion, ironically, than when Moi was president of Kenya.

No election is perfect, however, this one was the worst ever in terms of the sheer scale of divergence between public expectations and actual performance by the electoral body.

We have now had two apparently fraudulent elections in a row where the fraud was televised, SMSed, tweeted and generally widely reported on, especially during and since the court case that followed contestation of the presidential results.

That said, regardless of the manipulations, the voting pattern – largely along tribal lines – told us a great deal about ourselves. It also forces difficult questions upon us.


For starters, what is the point of people participating in national elections if it is believed by a critical mass of the population that certain pivotal positions are reserved for certain communities, based not on ability but on ancestry?

What does people believing this mean for Kenya? First it explains the generally foul mood of many middle class Kenyans who are neither Gikuyu nor Kalenjin.

A Nigerian friend made the observation last week that the contradictions inherent in the current ruling tribal alliance are so vast that it shall wobble too with time forcing a ‘militarisation of consent’ both formally and informally; both judicially and extra judicially.

I’m not so sure it is possible to militarise consent in Kenya. It has been attempted in northern Kenya since before independence and the project has never really been a total success.

Trying the same in say, the Rift Valley, would be an ambitious prospect. Instead, crime and ethnic cleansing on a voluntary basis has swept across entire swathes of the country.

Secondly, we are slowly coming to terms with the fact that the First Kenyan Republic has given up the ghost. The Second Republic under our 2010 constitution is the Tribal Nation – before all things in the way we relate to one another outside the realm of simple transactions.

Prof. Ogot was correct in April 2006 when he declared the Kenya Project as conceived by the African nationalists who breathed life into the attempts at Nations that colonialism left behind – dead. A more complex beast is emerging. More on this next time…


  1. Admin, and rest of deep cogitation IMPORTANT REQUEST.

    IEBC have at last issued the election result indicating that the discrepancy between the Presidential and other elective positions is a mere 58K. They have also conveniently indicated that Siaya county had the largest discrepancy between Presidential (largely in favor of RAO) and other elective positions.

    I am sure you have archives somewhere that will prove that the IEBC is lying. Is it possible to publish them?
    You know our lazy compromised media will not dare verify the IEBC results.


  2. Voter: Ballot was pre-marked in Uhuru Kenyatta’s favour

    By Willis Oketch

    Mombasa, Kenya: A witness in a petition challenging the election of Kwale Senator Boy Juma Boy Tuesday told a court in Mombasa that a pre-marked ballot paper in favour of President Uhuru Kenyatta was issued to a voter.

    The witness told Justice Fred Ochieng that the voter caused a commotion at Boha Primary School polling station when he realised that someone had ticked the ballot indicating preference for Uhuru.

    Mwanasiti Athumani Zondo, a witness for the Senator and an Orange Democratic Movement party agent during the poll said Said Swalehe, the alleged voter, discovered that the presidential ballot had been marked in favour of Uhuru when clerks issued him with six ballots.

    Not his choice

    “Suddenly he stood up and started shouting that he had been given a pre-marked ballot in favour of Uhuru yet he was not his candidate of choice,” said Mwanasiti in sworn evidence.

    The witness who was led in her evidence by lawyer Francis Kadima told the court that after a heated confrontation with electoral officials in the room, the voter was given a fresh ballot.

    When he took to the witness stand, Boy further said that he received a report that a commotion had ensued at the polling station where a ballot marked in favour of Uhuru was issued to a voter who had just entered the booth to vote.

    Meanwhile, Boy denied claims that he won the senator’s seat because the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission favoured him, saying the election was accurate and fair.



  3. Heheheee! The kitchen is getting hotter and hotter. Issack Hassan declines to take oath before presenting the final election results. He had given us his word that come this Thursday, Kenyans will get the final results published. Hehehe, but he has been giving us this promise week after week for the last 4 months!

    The trouble with math is that things must add up! Woyeee!!

    IEBC commissioners walk out of House team meeting

    A meeting between the electoral commission and a parliamentary committee was disrupted after chairman Issack Hassan declined to take oath before presenting the final election results.

    Mr Hassan led the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) commissioners in a walkout in protest saying other commissions appearing before House committees are not required to take oath.

    He also protested that the issue was raised by Kiminini MP Chris Wamalwa, who is not a member of the Legal Affairs Committee.

    Committee members had insisted that Mr Hassan should take oath before presenting the final computed election results.

    The commissioners left the session to “consult” over the matter.

    After some time, the IEBC commissioners went back to the meeting with Mr Hassan saying some members were observing the Holy Month of Ramadhan and serving a “higher calling”.

    The session continued in camera.

    On Tuesday, the IEBC failed to furnish Parliament with the final results of the March 4 General Election amid claims that some commissioners had refused to sign the report.

    Mr Hassan and chief executive James Oswago appeared before the committee but were turned away after the chairman indicated that the tally was not ready for submission as per the request from Parliament.

    “I want to apologise that I don’t have with me the commission’s response to the request for statement by the MP…It is being prepared to be sent to the Clerk and will be ready on Thursday,” he said.

    It, however, emerged that the chairman had prepared the tally ready for submission at Tuesday’s meeting but commissioners refused to sign the document.

    Parliament cannot accept an unsigned document for validity and ownership purposes.

    Dagoretti North MP Simba Arati claimed the commission was not being honest with the parliamentary committee.

    “The chairman must tell us the truth because we have information from his office that indeed he has prepared the information requested but his team has refused to sign. He should be very clear on this,” said the MP.



  4. Kenyans have ‘resentment and anger’ over election results – Hassan

    Technological and other “challenges” experienced in the recent elections have taught the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) lessons it will apply in future polls, the IEBC chairman told a Washington audience on Wednesday.

    Mr. Issack Hassan acknowledged that the commission took too ambitious an approach in managing the voting in March.

    He cited widespread breakdowns of electronic voter identification devices and malfunctioning of the computer system for reporting results.

    “We needed more consultation and testing on a smaller scale” before trying to implement these new technologies, Mr Hassan added.

    The IEBC also “had built huge expectations that this is going to work,” he noted.
    “People equated the technology with free and fair elections,” Mr Hassan observed, adding, “We need to better manage expectations.”

    He further acknowledged that some Kenyans “still have resentment and anger” over the results of the election, with many of them blaming the IEBC for what they view as an unfair outcome.

    “We have been caricatured, called thieves, called corrupt people,” he said. “It comes with the territory.”

    Exit poll

    Mr Hassan added with a smile that the chairmanship of the IEBC has been described as a “lonely and thankless” position.

    But he also strongly defended the conduct of the voting.

    “All reports say the elections were largely credible,” Mr Hassan noted. “There was no theft of the election.”

    In response to a question, he rejected the findings of an Election Day exit poll conducted by two US political scientists that showed Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga both receiving about 40 percent of the vote.

    “That exit poll was very surprising to us because it went against every other poll in the country,” Mr Hassan said. He pointed out that the results of the parliamentary vote were consistent with the reported results of the presidential vote.

    Prof Joel Barkan, a US specialist in Kenyan politics, noted during the forum held at the International Foundation for Electoral Systems that the election cost $100 million. And vote tallies are still not posted on the IEBC website three months after polling day, Prof Barkan added.

    Mr Hassan said in response that the actual cost of the election was Sh6.8 billion, which is about $80 million at today’s exchange rate. He also promised that the full election results would be posted online soon.



  5. What we know and don’t about poll

    Former US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld is less famous for positions he has held than for three short lines he uttered at a press briefing on Iraq in February 2002:

    “There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know.”

    Rumsfeld was ridiculed in some quarters for what many saw as an unnecessarily convoluted statement, but he made an important point: sometimes we know far less than we think we do.
    A June 3-4 conference in Nairobi revealed that the recent elections were one such event.

    The academic meeting, organised by the universities of Durham, Oxford, Warwick in collaboration with the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Nairobi, revealed that although we can answer many questions about the elections, we lack the information to answer many more.

    Let us follow Rumsfeld and start with the ‘things that we know that we know’.

    Some papers presented at the conference documented how many of the key mechanisms designed to prevent rigging collapsed, including the use of fingerprint verification technology and the transmission of preliminary results via mobile phone.

    Speakers also discussed the worrying number of irregularities in terms of the way that the relevant forms for the recording of results at various levels of counting and aggregation were filled (or in some cases not filled) in. Such inconsistencies – many of which remain explained – have understandably undermined the credibility of the election in the eyes of CORD supporters and many civil society groups.

    Yet discussions over the two days of the conference also revealed a general consensus that the Jubilee Alliance ran an excellent campaign that had a powerful narrative, employed effective international consultants, and comfortably outspent rival parties many times over.

    Given this, and the fact that voters in Central Province historically register and turn out at higher levels than those in Nyanza, it seems plausible that Uhuru Kenyatta won more votes than Raila Odinga, whether or not he surpassed the 50 + 1 threshold for a first round win.

    Electoral irregularities

    As things stand, working out just how well President Kenyatta did, how extensive electoral irregularities were, and whether a run-off should have been held, is impossible because of Rumsfeld’s second category: what we know we do not know.

    One of the main points that emerged from the conference is that our knowledge of the election is based on shaky foundations because we do not yet have the full set of election results for all six contests.

    The electoral commission was expected to declare the full set of results for all positions – MP, senator, governor, and so on – shortly after the presidential elections.

    That has not happened, raising suspicion that comparisons between the different contests will reveal a new set of irregularities.

    For example, if it is true that one million more voters were cast in the presidential election than the other contests – as recently confirmed by a commissioner – this would significantly undermine the credibility of the elections, because very few domestic or international election observers reported seeing people vote in the presidential election and not vote in the contest for governor.

    Indeed, given how important posts such as governor and senator are, it seems implausible that hundreds of thousands of Kenyans would have bothered to go to the polls and queued up for hours in the sun only to leave before recording their preferences.

    Given this, unless the official results can be reconciled in a way that explains such inconsistencies, their release will call into question the conduct of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and the Supreme Court, whose validation of the outcome effectively brought the elections to a close.

    What we don’t know is even more important than you might think, because it has serious implications for what we think we do know. Most obviously, if one million more votes were cast in the presidential election than the others, this would suggest that there were not just minor problems with the election results as the Supreme Court concluded, but that the breakdown of the process was far more widespread than many currently realise.

    Kenyan politics

    Less obviously, the announcement of the full results may also change the way that we think about Kenyan politics. As things stand, many commentators and some of the academics presented at the conference have interpreted the high turnout and bloc voting in Central Province, Nyanza, and Rift Valley in favour of coalitions led by figures from those regions as evidence that ethnic voting patterns were particularly strong in 2013.

    In turn, this has led a number of academic and media commentators to conclude that the controversial issues that enabled Jubilee leaders to rally their own communities to their cause – most notably the ICC cases and some of the statements made by the international community – were key to Mr Kenyatta’s victory.

    But if the additional one million presidential votes were cast in these strongholds, it may be that less Kenyans actually turned out to vote in these areas, and that those who turned out voted “less ethnically”, than we think. If this turns out to be the case, it would follow that the role of the ICC and the international community may not have been as important as many have argued.

    What about Rumsfeld’s final category – what we don’t know we don’t know? As the philosophers among you will already have realised, we can’t say anything much on this point. Rumsfeld’s point was precisely that many of the most important things we don’t know cannot be anticipated, because they will be so new and unexpected that they will take us by surprise.

    For example, it is possible that new information about the elections will emerge that will change the way we think about Kenyan politics in new and important ways that none of us could have predicted. This may provide further evidence of President Kenyatta’s popularity, helping to legitimise the results and the political system.

    Or it may enable us to see what went wrong, and how key democratic institutions can be reformed and supported to strengthen their performance next time round. Either way, it is important to keep an open mind as we await the final results from the IEBC, and to remember that we may know less than we think we do about the 2013 Kenyan elections.

    Dr Cheeseman teaches African Politics at the University of Oxford. Full report of the conference will soon be available via his website at http://www.democracyinafrica.org.



  6. Hassan should stop chasing shadows and release pending poll vote tallies

    The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) is reported to be contemplating an internal review of its performance in the just-concluded General Election.

    The role of the IEBC in the elections was the subject of two court petitions that unsuccessfully challenged presidential results.

    Whereas there were undeniable shortcomings in the conduct of the elections, the Supreme Court found nothing wrong with the IEBC. It also concluded that the elections had been free and fair.

    The nearest that the court came to finding fault with the IEBC was with regard to the procurement decisions for the very expensive, but ultimately unhelpful gadgets that were to run the elections.

    It is fair to say that, just like the IEBC, the Supreme Court should also conduct and internal review of its own performance in the elections. The court has a very unique mandate to oversee the election of the president, exercisable in intervals of five years.

    Whereas the judgment was accepted by the parties, and the public, it is demonstrable that the court made significant errors, including the unfounded finding that elections can be run on multiple registers, the controversial decision on “all votes cast”, which has the effect of changing the constitutional threshold for the election of the president, and the failure to apply to the dispute before it the constitutional requirement that the IEBC must hold free, fair and accountable elections.

    The Supreme Court would also do well to review the procedural decisions made during the petitions, which are reminiscent of the harsh and technical approach of the Judiciary of old, which it was supposed to replace.

    Whereas the IEBC is ready to conduct an internal review of its performance, it is yet to release all the results of the elections held two months ago.

    At first, it was thought that the delay was due to ordinary management weaknesses within the IEBC. However, it has since emerged that the IEBC is “having sleepless nights reconciling the presidential results and those of the other positions.”

    This revelation came in the light of attempts by the IEBC to apply the results in the distribution of the Political Parties Fund which, according to the applicable law, is to be shared among qualifying parties on the basis of votes received in the several categories of the elections, including the presidential contest.

    Because the results in custody do not make sense, the electoral management body is seeking a change of the law which will allow it to use a different formula from that of the votes received in the elections to allocate funding for political parties.

    According to some commissioners, “over a million votes must be reconciled with the others and if the requirement is not changed then it will cast the IEBC in a negative light.”

    What is clear from these revelations is that something is wrong with the numbers in the presidential results announced by the IEBC. They reflect a voter turnout that cannot be reconciled with other results in the same elections.

    Rather than face up to this problem, the IEBC has chosen to employ secrecy as a way of managing the crisis in which it finds itself. These new revelations, including allegations that the results already published by the IEBC in its website are being altered, demonstrates that the body no longer cares about its own legitimacy.

    In the circumstances, it would be surprising if the intended internal review will amount to anything more than another opportunity by the IEBC to excuse itself from the numbers chaos.

    The IEBC should, without delay, release all the outstanding results for the rest of the elections.

    The people will worry for themselves whether or not these add up, and what is to be made of the situation if the results do not add up.





      Former Prime Minister Raila Odinga has demanded the immediate release of the final results of the March 4 general election.

      Raila yesterday challenged the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission to end the delay “if its conduct is above board”.

      Raila also asked President Uhuru Kenyatta to recall all the county commissioners if he is committed to the success of devolution. The former PM said their presence in the counties is causing unnecessary supremacy battles with elected governors.

      Addressing a public rally in Kawangware, Raila, who was accompanied by six Cord MPs, said IEBC should expedite the process and avoid unnecessary delays that may hamper the equitable sharing of funds among registered political parties.

      The Political Parties Act provides that all the election results must be computed per party after every general election putting into account the results garnered on the basis of the President, Governor, MPs and ward representatives to determine the amount of money a party would get.

      “If indeed the IEBC conducted a free and fair poll, why is it delaying the computation of the election results three months later? They should announce so that we know what TNA, ODM, Wiper among other parties got,” Raila told the crowd at the Kabiro Primary School.

      The Supreme Court on April 9 upheld the IEBC declaration of Uhuru as the winner after Raila’s Cord challenged the outcome of the presidential election.

      The court ruled that the process was within the law and that Uhuru had been validly elected as the president.

      Raila’s sentiments come against the backdrop of divisions within the IEBC over the computation of the results. An IEBC commissioner, who did not want his identity revealed, told the Star that the final figure was to be released before the end of last week but the disagreement among them had caused the delay.

      The figures, according to the commissioner, were to be finalised before presentation of budget estimates to the parliamentary committee.

      Whereas some commissioners want the the process finalised, others want the section of the Political Parties’ Act providing for the computation of results amended to give the commission more time. Those pushing for the amendment want the parties to share the monies on the basis of their representation in the Parliament and the county assemblies.

      According to the commissioner, the variation of the results between the presidential and other positions was “irreconcilable”.

      “The IEBC was to release the results before the end of the week but the huge variation between the presidential results announced on the 9th of March this year and the other positions combined is the source of the headache,” the source said.

      Raila also criticised the leadership of Parliament for frustrating the success of county governments. He said the current power games between the Senate and the National Assembly are unfortunate at a time when devolution should be taking root.

      He accused Speaker of the National Assembly Justin Muturi of advancing the interests of the executive through his “poor interpretation” of the law in making critical rulings. In his ruling recently, Muturi said the Senate had no role in the Division of Revenue Bill even after he had referred the Bill to it.

      “Muturi should learn from what his predecessor Kenneth Marende did. He should also avoid directing MPs like small children because they elected him and can impeach him,” Raila said.

      The two Houses are at loggerheads over who has the final say on the Division of Revenue Bill that provides for the sharing of the revenue between the national government and the county governments. Already an MP is hatching a plot to scrap the Senate through a constitutional amendment Bill.

      “The fight between the two Houses is not important; the most important thing is to ensure money goes to the grassroots. Where there is devolution like in the US, Switzerland among other countries, there is always a second House to safeguard it,” he said.

      Area MP Simba Arati urged the government to accord Raila the respect that befits his status. “We will not sit back as people intimidate you. We will fight the dark forces that you fought against to ensure we enjoy our rights and freedoms,” said Arati.



  7. Jansinteur Wrote:

    During the CORD Presidential Election Petition before the Supreme Court there was a deliberation on the difference between spoilt ballot papers and spoilt votes. Spoilt votes are counted from ballot papers which have been placed in ballot boxes. What people have done with their ballot papers I do not know? I have not seen any data on returned (unused) ballot papers.
    Your enlighten effort does not bring me closer to reality so what do you think about my suggestion for asking the voter?”


    I like debates, but I do not like debates that must continue endlessly just because the other debater likes and finds endless debates entertaining or that other debater simply does not want to put on his/her ‘thinking cap’.

    Which part of my explanation do you not understand? And I think your suggestion that we ask the voter is damn silly. It simply shows the seriousness with which you treat the topic under discussion, namely, the topic is not important!

    I want you now to put your thinking cap on please for I do not intend to repeat myself.

    First, Kenyan election laws do not allow voters to leave the polling station with any ballot papers, be they spoilt or unused.

    Secondly, assume that we are dealing with 1 million used ballot papers here after these voters decided to vote only for the president but are holding onto the ballots papers meant for the remaining 5 positions. According to the law, these voters MUST SURRENDER (and the polling clerks are monitoring all the activities taking place within the polling station at all times!) the 5 million unused ballot papers to the clerks as they exit the station. The clerks are supposed to mark them as unused with the accompanying written explanation as they may have been trained to do in such a case.

    After the polls, like now, these are the statistics that the IEBC needs to reconcile its figures. If IEBC did this, it would not be facing the current vote reconciliation nightmare!

    Simply put, IEBC stuffed the presidential ballot boxes with 1 million votes, but did not think beyond its nose to mark another 5 million votes, for example, as ‘handed to the voter, but returned unused by the voter’ so that it can use them in the post-poll reconciliation of figures to balance its sheet!

    Jan, these are the 1 million an unaccounted for ghost voters. You can take your route, if you want, by ringing all the 14 million voters one by one and asking them if they ‘really’ voted all the 6 position that were on offer. I’m sure you got the money for the phone calls and the personnel too. How amateurish does that route strike you?


    • Man arrested after admitting in court he voted twice in Makadara Constituency

      NAIROBI, KENYA: A witness in an election petition was arrested after admitting in court to voting twice for a Member of National Assembly in Makadara Constituency.

      Justice Richard Mwongo ordered that Daniel Nyakundi be arrested forthwith on his own admission of guilt and investigation be carried out immediately.

      The court also directed that officials of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission ( IEBC) at Kaloleni polling station be investigated, with the view of establishing who presented Nyakundi with two ballot papers.

      “An offence has been admitted and it would be improper for the court to ignore it, “ruled the judge.

      It was a case of the hunter being hunted when court orderlies pounced on Nyakundi while at the witness stand and handcuffed him.

      He was led to the courts basement cell where he will cool his heels until he will be released on bond.

      Section 58 of Elections Act provides that a person who votes twice can be fined Sh2 million or six months in jail.

      Nyakundi who was called in as the witness for former Nairobi Mayor George Aladwa in an election petition challenging the election of Benson Kangara as Madaraka MP admitted to have voted twice in his affidavit and in court.

      “I voted in Kaloleni primary school and IEBC officials gave me two ballot papers and they were the ones who deposited them into the ballot box after I voted, “he added.

      The witness said he was paid two hundred shillings after casting his vote.

      He added that he voted at stream five yet he was registered to vote at stream two at the polling center.

      “I was given the two ballot papers for Member of National Assembly and I was merely following instructions of the IEBC official. It was not my fault, “he told the court.

      Aladwa asked the court to direct IEBC to produce their officials who were based in Kaloleni to give an account of what happened.

      The former Mayor wants the court to nullify the election of Kangara and instead declare him the winner.

      He told the trial court that he believes he won elections by over 39,000 votes.

      Kangara garnered 37,644 votes against Aladwa’s 36,079.

      Aladwa, who was Kangara’s closest rival, filed an election petition on grounds that elections in Makadara constituency were marred with massive irregularities.

      He said several polling station posted results that indicated that votes cast were more than registered voters.

      “The total cast votes are indicated as 89,152 and the rejected votes were 786 therefore the total valid votes ought to be 88,366 and not 87,618 as indicated, “he said.



  8. The difference between the total votes for President and for the other positions keeps coming up as proof of ballot box stuffing and rigging attempts. Everyone has his own interpretation of reason why there is a difference of about 1 million votes however there are no attempts to search for reality.
    Maybe 7 percent of the voters did go to the polling station and only voted for a presidential candidate. We don’t know but the voter knows. Why don’t we invite one of the pollsters to do an opinion poll with the question; “did you voted for several of the positions or only for president?”
    If about 7 percent of the people answers; “only for president” we can forget about all these rigging rumours though if less than 1 percent gives this answer we still have to search for an explanation.

    “The truth will set you free” or better “get closer to reality and temper the influence of your imaginary world”.


    • Jan,

      Have you really bothered to inform yourself about voting laws in Kenya?

      Did you know, for example, that you CANNOT leave a polling station with ANY ballot papers?

      Thus, there is no way people could vote ONLY for president and carry home with them the other 5 unused ballot papers!

      Such people would have been required by law to surrender the unused ballots to the polling clerk who would have in turn declared the ballots spoilt and as such there would be no an unaccounted for 1 million votes since the number of spoilt votes would automatically match the difference in the total number of presidential votes cast and that cast for the other 5 elective positions!

      Does it make sense to you now?

      Jan if you are an agent of impunity, then please feel free to kindly take it elsewhere. DC is an impunity free zone!

      On DC, we talk naked facts regardless of who is in power!

      I am sorry if I sound too harsh on you.


      • Onestone,
        During the CORD Presidential Election Petition before the Supreme Court there was a deliberation on the difference between spoilt ballot papers and spoilt votes. Spoilt votes are counted from ballot papers which have been placed in ballot boxes. What people have done with their ballot papers I do not know? I have not seen any data on returned (unused) ballot papers.
        Your enlighten effort does not bring me closer to reality so what do you think about my suggestion for asking the voter?



    On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 7:47 PM, The Real Deal wrote:

    > ** > johns2460 posted: ” Saturday, June 1, 2013 – 00:00 — BY JOHN GITHONGO > Last Thursday, The Star published a seemingly innocuous piece titled IEBC > wants Political Parties Act amended. The amendment, the report explained, > was because the IEBC “


    • Jansinteur,

      Your attempt to offer no reason for the 1 million ghost votes sound awfull if not idiotic, which i am sure you are not. So what exactly informs your desperate meandering to what has become more obvious, to the extent that even IEBC officials are having sleepless nights to explain this inconsistency?

      I think its silly to take leave of your mind and camouflagged it with this desperate delegation to another misguided opinion body. (Man the whallowing in ignorance which some kenyans enjoy living in is quite astounding).


      • Johns,
        Obvious are perceptions supported by facts. The only facts we have is the difference between votes for President and other positions. This leaves us with an empty playing field which can be filled with all sorts of imaginary reasons depending on the coloured glasses someone is wearing. This is insufficient for rational thinking people to come to a convergent conclusion.

        ****[ This blog was started due to the fact that debate is often derailed by addressing illogical, impractical and incredulous argument such as this ]****

        We need facts and the source of facts is the voter. Can we not find ways to ask the voter if he voted for President only and maybe satisfy our curiosity by telling us what he did with the other ballot papers?

        ****[ be advised that we have no time or room for this kind of reasoning – Blog Admin ]*****

        You have to convince 50% + 1 Citizens of Kenya that someone rigged the elections. How will you do this without facts? You make yourself a spitefulness loser.


What Say You Now?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s