Kenya's Supreme Court on Monday upheld the August 9 election of William Ruto as president in a unanimous decision, Chief Justice Martha Koome said, throwing out a petition brought by opposition leader Raila Odinga. Picture: Raila Odinga.
Kenya’s Supreme Court has ruled against candidate Raila Odinga’s challenge to the outcome of last month’s presidential election.
Odinga had alleged electoral fraud after his opponent, William Ruto, was declared the winner.
The court on Monday upheld the August 9 election of Ruto as president in a unanimous decision, Chief Justice Martha Koome said, throwing out a petition brought by opposition leader Raila Odinga.
The Supreme Court found petitioners did not provide a watertight case for the nullification of results on the basis that the 50%-plus-one constitutional threshold for an outright win was not met.
The court rejected the evidence and arguments by the petitioners, which it described at one point as “hot air, red herrings and forgeries”.
On the four of seven commissioners of the electoral body who disowned the results, the court asked: “Are we to nullify the outcome of an election on the basis of a last-minute boardroom rupture whose details remain scanty?”
The judges found it would amount to upsetting the sovereign will of the people.
President-elect Ruto will be sworn in next Tuesday as prescribed by the constitution.
This was Raila Odinga’s fifth unsuccessful bid to become president, and in his words, at the age of 77, the final attempt.
The court says Ruto did get more than 50% plus one votes. The seven-judge bench chaired by Justice Koome ruled on whether the technology deployed by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission for the conduct of August 9, 2022, met the standards of integrity, verifiability, security, and transparency to guarantee accurate and verifiable results.
Before the Supreme Courts announcement on Monday, Kenyan political pundits said Odinga’s attempt in the courts is like a drowning man clutching at political-judicial straws, the outcome of which would be dismally in favour of the results which would be very hard (impossible, some say) to discredit in any serious way, as cited by AFP.
IOL
Related Topics: