PRESIDENT ELECT UHURU'S RESPONSE TO THE CORD'S PETIITON
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO PETITION
The contents of paragraph 2.3 of the Petition are incorrect to the
that the Petitioner attributes the enactment of the Constitution to the
Government of the Republic of Kenya, civil society and the private
sector whereas the Constitution is in truth adopted and enacted by the people
The 3rd Respondent having perused the Petition has noted that no
Accusation is made against him.
The Petition is replete with falsehood and is a robust effort to
exaggerate facts and circumstances which are intended to secure for the
Petitioner an unjust advantage. The Petition in essence seeks to
the will of Kenya people who elected the 3rd Respondent in elections
were free, fair and credible by the standards established by law.
The 1st Respondent’s conduct of the election must also be assessed
against the following novel circumstances;
For the first time in Kenya’s history, 6 elections were held
simultaneously on the same day.
For the first time in Kenya’s history, portions of the electoral process
were conducted through electronic means including voter registration.
The general election was the first one under the new Constitution.
The record registration of over 14 million voters.
Creation of 80 new constituencies and delimitation of new electoral
undertaken in 2011 pursuant to the provisions of Article 89 of the
Constitution of Kenya.
The conduct of elections under a statutory framework for the creation of
coalitions and a new Political Parties Act.
The conduct of elections that will lead to the first devolved system of
Government in Kenya.
Significant delays in the enactment of electoral laws by Parliament
was compounded by several late stage amendments to such laws with the
attendant consequence that the 1st
Respondent’s schedule of executing the efficient conduct of the
A legal challenge and political opposition to the procurement process
commenced by the 1st
Respondent for BVI, BVR and electronic results transmission system.
The Constitution does not impose any duty on the 1st Respondent to use
BVI, BVR and/or a system of transmitting election results electronically
hence it is a fundamental misconception of the law for the Petitioner to
contend that either registration of voters, identification of voters or
transmission of the votes cast was required by law to be done via an
At a press conference convened on 31st July, 2012,the Petitioner and
several senior members of ODM called for a return to the manual system
declared that Kenyans did not want the BVR system. It is therefore the
height of hypocrisy for the Petitioner to now claim that the only
process of conducting elections must be founded on an electronic system.
Following consultations between the President, the Petitioner and the
Respondent, a decision was made to procure the BVR Kits from the
of Canada in a Government – Government deal. The Cabinet meeting at
the decision was made was chaired by the President and the Petitioner.
It therefore follows that the Petitioner had a critical role in the
identification and eventual purchase of the BVR Kits. The Petitioner
therefore either found a cause of action arising from his participation
the purchase of the BVR kits and/or benefit from the ultimate partial
failure of the electronic systems.
The notion that electronic voting systems are the only accurate,
accountable, verifiable, transparent and efficient method of voter
registration, voting and results transmission
is not only fundamentally unsound in law but also factually incorrect.
Such systems have failed all over the world in the past in the following
(i) The BVR system crashed and/or failed in 2012 in the Ghana
(ii) Electronic voting systems failed during the 2000 Presidential
election in the United States of America.
(iii) Electronic voting systems have failed, crashed and or
in numerous elections in Europe and in Municipal elections in the United
States of America to the extent that legislation has been introduced in
some jurisdictions requirement for a manual back up system in every
In excess of 800,000 people expressed their preference for the 3rd
Respondent who are more than the total number of voters in 3 densely
populated counties namely Tharaka Nithi, Kakamega and Bomet.
Every effort humanly possible was made to ensure that the voting method
adopted by the 1st
Respondent was simple, accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable and
The results announced were indeed accurate and verifiable in accordance
with the standard established by law and were announced in a transparent
and lawful manner as contemplated by Article 86 of the Constitution and
Election (General) Regulations,2012.
The allegations at page 14 paragraph 5.2 of the Petition are false. In
particular the 3rd
Respondent states that the will of the people of Kenya expressed in a
free fair and credible electoral process cannot in law be overturned or
subverted on the basis of a hypothesis. The petition correctly
is founded on a hypothesis incapable of proof; it is an expression of
bitterness arising from the Petitioner’s loss of the poll and raises no
legal issues capable of a judicial inquiry.
The allegations at page 16 paragraph 5.5 are false. The agents for all
political parties present at the national tallying centre were not
from the tallying centre but rather provided with suitable alternative
facilities within the tallying centre after the Petitioner’s supporters
started shouting and mis-conducting themselves in a room which they and
other agents had been allocated for verification of results.
It is thus manifestly clear that the Petitioner’s attempt to impeach the
entire electoral process and invalidate the results is an afterthought
informed by the shock of losing the election rather than on any
or irregularities by the 1stand 2nd Respondents.
The 3rd Respondent states that the burden of the Petitioner’s case is
that the entire electoral process commencing with voter registration,
voting and tallying of results and the declaration of results was
null and void. The 3rd Respondent contends that the court is being
to stage a coup against the constitutional governance of Kenya in that
only the Presidential election would be impugned but the Parliamentary,
Gubernatorial, Senatorial and County Assembly elections would also be
The Orders sought by the Petitioner are also mischievous and designed to
caused is proportionate harm to constitutional governance in that they
for impeachment without legal basis of the only body established in law
conduct elections so as to trigger a crisis in the Executive and
Legislative arms of Government that would enable the Petitioner to
negotiate and/or bully his way to power in contravention of the
The truth Shall set you free