The nominations for Kanduyi Constituency were marred by massive irregularities that titled the scales for the aspirant who eventually won the seat, this is according to lawyer Edwin Sifuna.
Sifuna, former Chair of ODM Appeals Committee, polled second during the exercise. He says a number of factors during the nomination point to a collusion between election officials and Mr. John Makali, the winner.
The Council Member with the Law Society of Kenya wants the exercise repeated, and conducted credibly.
This is not far-fetched as it was also experienced in the Busia gubernatorial election, where election officials for Teso South and North colluded with incumbent governor to rig the polls through massive ballot stuffing.
Below is a summary of Sifuna’s case as presented to the National Elections Board of ODM:
a. The Respondents kept shifting polling centers from time to time even hours
before the nomination day. Centers such as Pinnacle, Kanduyi Children’s Home,
and Wamalwa Kijana Secondary, Khaweli and Siritanyi kept disappearing and
reappearing on the list of centers. This caused a lot of confusion to voters and
even affected voting patterns across the constituency.
b. On the nomination day, the Respondents skewed the distribution of electoral
material especially ballot papers against the appellants so that many of his
strongholds did not receive the election material until as late as 16.00 hours.
Table A below sets out the specific instances. Indeed it took the Appellant
providing his own transportation for ballot papers to reach polling stations in
Sangalo West, Sangalo East, Bukembe East, Bukembe West. In comparison,
stations in the opponents ward had been voting for hours by the time material
arrived in these four wards. The result of it was that many people who turned up
to vote as early as 4 am in the morning got discouraged and left the polling
c. In Tuuti Marakaru ward, many centers did not receive ballot papers until 4 Pm
only an hour before the polls closed.
d. In centers like Kitinda Primary, the Respondents did not provide the full register
of all the combined stations falling under the centre. Many party members
including the Appellant could not find their names on the register. Many were
turned away and it is only because the appellant himself was an aspirant that he
was allowed to vote.
e. In Centers like Kitinda and Kongoli the respondent provided insufficient ballot
materials which ran out quickly. At Kitinda for instance the Appellant himself
had to wait hours for ballot papers before he could vote for himself.
f. At Mupeli Primary School and Moi Primary School, violence erupted causing
many of the voters especially the women to stay away fearing for their safety.
g. There is indication that the Respondents failed to secure the ballot papers and the
appellants opponents and or their agents were able to access the same.
h. There was open fraud in some polling centers, for instance Kisuluni, where the
number of votes cast for the 1st Respondent exceeded the number of registered
i. Further evidence of ballot stuffing can be discerned from the fact that the total
number of votes cast in Kanduyi Constituency for the position of MP exceeded
the total number of votes cast for the position of Women rep by over 2,500 votes.
The party has always pointed to the discrepancy of the 2million people who
voted only for president in 2013 as proof of fraud in that election. The same is the