CJ’s staff may have hidden Africog letterCJ’s staff may have hidden Africog letter
SOME officers in the judiciary may have hidden a complaint by Africog on last year’s election from the President of the Supreme Court Willy Mutunga.
According to correspondence seen by the Star, the Chief Justice tells Africog executive director Gladwell Otieno that he did not receive their complaint.
“I am extremely sorry that your letter of June 5, 2013 was not brought to my attention. I apologise. I will place your report before the Supreme Court for discussion and response. Again I am sorry,” Mutunga wrote on February 7.
Otieno had written to Mutunga on January 29 saying that Africog, on June 5, last year sent a report on its concerns with how the Supreme Court scrutinised the 2013 presidential election tallying forms.
Mutunga had, on May 29 last year asked Africog to provide more information after receiving Otieno’s first letter written early in the month.
Africog was one of the petitioners who challenged the declaration of Uhuru Kenyatta as the country’s fourth President following March 4 general election.
Cord leader Raila Odinga was the other petition in a case where the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Uhuru and the IEBC.
During the Supreme Court hearing, Mutunga and his colleagues ordered for a scrutiny of the tallying forms with representatives from the petitioners and defendants.
In the complaint, which was also published in the Star on April 13, 2013, Africog said the methodology used by the judicial staff to scrutinise the forms was flawed.
“The methodology for scrutinising the Form 36—the document used to collate results at the constituency level—was flawed and failed to show important discrepancies. Our analysis showed that in some cases, the numbers for a particular polling station, as recorded on Form 36, were different from what was recorded on the corresponding Form 34,” the letter read.
Africog said the judiciary review did not highlight important differences between Forms 34 and Forms 36.
The NGO said the review did not show, for instance, that in Isiolo North, the total number of votes calculated for Uhuru Kenyatta from all Forms 34 was 17,675.
“On Form 36, Kenyatta is reported to have won with 18,489. Where did 814 extra votes come from? In Turkana North, the Form 34 total for Kenyatta was 3,567, but Form 36 showed Kenyatta won with 3,507 votes, which is 60 less votes than what was on the primary document,” Africog report reads.
SOME officers in the judiciary may have hidden a complaint by Africog on last year’s election from the President of the Supreme Court Willy Mutunga.
According to correspondence seen by the Star, the Chief Justice tells Africog executive director Gladwell Otieno that he did not receive their complaint.
“I am extremely sorry that your letter of June 5, 2013 was not brought to my attention. I apologise. I will place your report before the Supreme Court for discussion and response. Again I am sorry,” Mutunga wrote on February 7.
Otieno had written to Mutunga on January 29 saying that Africog, on June 5, last year sent a report on its concerns with how the Supreme Court scrutinised the 2013 presidential election tallying forms.
Mutunga had, on May 29 last year asked Africog to provide more information after receiving Otieno’s first letter written early in the month.
Africog was one of the petitioners who challenged the declaration of Uhuru Kenyatta as the country’s fourth President following March 4 general election.
Cord leader Raila Odinga was the other petition in a case where the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Uhuru and the IEBC.
During the Supreme Court hearing, Mutunga and his colleagues ordered for a scrutiny of the tallying forms with representatives from the petitioners and defendants.
In the complaint, which was also published in the Star on April 13, 2013, Africog said the methodology used by the judicial staff to scrutinise the forms was flawed.
“The methodology for scrutinising the Form 36—the document used to collate results at the constituency level—was flawed and failed to show important discrepancies. Our analysis showed that in some cases, the numbers for a particular polling station, as recorded on Form 36, were different from what was recorded on the corresponding Form 34,” the letter read.
Africog said the judiciary review did not highlight important differences between Forms 34 and Forms 36.
The NGO said the review did not show, for instance, that in Isiolo North, the total number of votes calculated for Uhuru Kenyatta from all Forms 34 was 17,675.
“On Form 36, Kenyatta is reported to have won with 18,489. Where did 814 extra votes come from? In Turkana North, the Form 34 total for Kenyatta was 3,567, but Form 36 showed Kenyatta won with 3,507 votes, which is 60 less votes than what was on the primary document,” Africog report reads.
By General Mathenge for the STAR