PRESIDENT ELECT UHURU'S RESPONSE TO THE CORD'S PETIITON

  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO PETITION
  1.
  The contents of paragraph 2.3 of the Petition are incorrect to the
  extent
  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
  of
  Kenya.

  2.
  The 3rd Respondent having perused the Petition has noted that no
  Accusation is made against him.

  3.
  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
  substitute
  the will of Kenya people who elected the 3rd Respondent in elections
  that
  were free, fair and credible by the standards established by law.

  4.
  The 1st Respondent’s conduct of the election must also be assessed
  against the following novel circumstances;
  (i)
  For the first time in Kenya’s history, 6 elections were held
  simultaneously on the same day.
  (ii)
  For the first time in Kenya’s history, portions of the electoral process
  were conducted through electronic means including voter registration.
  (iii)
  The general election was the first one under the new Constitution.
  (iv)
  The record registration of over 14 million voters.
  (v)
  Creation of 80 new constituencies and delimitation of new electoral
  units
  undertaken in 2011 pursuant to the provisions of Article 89 of the
  Constitution of Kenya.
  (vi)
  The conduct of elections under a statutory framework for the creation of
  coalitions and a new Political Parties Act.
  (vii)
  The conduct of elections that will lead to the first devolved system of
  Government in Kenya.
  (viii)
  Significant delays in the enactment of electoral laws by Parliament
  which
  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
  elections
  was disrupted.
  (ix)
  A legal challenge and political opposition to the procurement process
  commenced by the 1st
  Respondent for BVI, BVR and electronic results transmission system.

  5.
  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
  electronic system.
  6.
  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
  and
  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
  credible
  process of conducting elections must be founded on an electronic system.
  7.
  Following consultations between the President, the Petitioner and the
  1st
  Respondent, a decision was made to procure the BVR Kits from the
  Government
  of Canada in a Government – Government deal. The Cabinet meeting at
  which
  the decision was made was chaired by the President and the Petitioner.
  8.
  It therefore follows that the Petitioner had a critical role in the
  identification and eventual purchase of the BVR Kits. The Petitioner
  cannot
  therefore either found a cause of action arising from his participation
  in
  the purchase of the BVR kits and/or benefit from the ultimate partial
  failure of the electronic systems.
  9.
  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
  instances:
  (i) The BVR system crashed and/or failed in 2012 in the Ghana
  Presidential election.
  (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
  malfunctioned
  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
  election.
  10.
  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.
  11.
  Every effort humanly possible was made to ensure that the voting method
  adopted by the 1st
  Respondent was simple, accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable and
  transparent.
  12.
  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
  the
  Election (General) Regulations,2012.
  13.
  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
  understood,
  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.
  14.
  The allegations at page 16 paragraph 5.5 are false. The agents for all
  political parties present at the national tallying centre were not
  ejected
  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.
  15.
  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
  impropriety
  or irregularities by the 1stand 2nd Respondents.

  16.
  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
  invalid,
  null and void. The 3rd Respondent contends that the court is being
  invited
  to stage a coup against the constitutional governance of Kenya in that
  not
  only the Presidential election would be impugned but the Parliamentary,
  Gubernatorial, Senatorial and County Assembly elections would also be
  vitiated.
  17.
  The Orders sought by the Petitioner are also mischievous and designed to
  caused is proportionate harm to constitutional governance in that they
  call
  for impeachment without legal basis of the only body established in law
  to
  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
  Constitution.
  The truth Shall set you free