Notice of Motion for Enjoinment in Election Petition No. 1 of 2017

Notice of Motion for Enjoinment in Election Petition No. 1 of 2017
On Friday 11th August 2017 the Chairman of the IEBC announced the Presidential results of the 2017 Presidential Elections. In a statement on 12th August 2017,

Statement on the just concluded 2017 Presidential Elections.The Chairman of IEBC and the Chief Returning Officer of…

Posted by Professor Michael Wainaina – PhD on Saturday, August 12, 2017

I accepted the results without qualification.

On Friday 18th August, Mr. Raila Odinga one of the Presidential candidates in the election, filed a petition challenging the election results as announced by the IEBC. He (Mr. Odinga) is listed in the petititon as the 1st Petitioner and Mr. Kalonzo Musyoka as the 2nd Petittioner. This is procedural, it is their right and the right thing to do. The IEBC, the IEBC Chairman and Mr. Uhuru Kenyatta, another of the Presidential candindates, are named in the petition as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively.

As a bonafide Independent Presidential Candidate in the election that is now the subject of the petition filed at the Supreme Court, I have moved to file a Notice of Motion to be enjoined in this case as intended respondent/amicus curiae.

Throughout my candidature, I have emphasized the non-negotiable role of the IEBC as the only and final arbiter on matters elections, not the candidates or their parties. I have emphatically reiterated, time after time, that the place of the IEBC as an independent commission must be defended, respected and protected, always. I still hold that position.

This does not mean that the Commission is infallible. It is however the place of the Supreme Court to hear any Petitions arising from a presidential election where the position of the IEBC is being challenged. Let us all support the Supreme Court as it arbitrates in the filed ELection Petition No. 1 of 2017. They are the Institution mandated to do so and I support the decision of the 1st and 2nd Petitioner to file their petition. In seeking to be enjoined in the petition, I take the position that he who alleges must prove. The Petitioners must then prove their case against the 1st and 2nd respondent and let the Supreme Court decide on the matter. Until overturned by the Court, the decision of the 1st and 2nd Respondent remains in force and I will reamain bound by it as stated in my statement of 12th August 2017.

Thank you.
Prof. Michael Wainaina, PhD.

Facebook Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Show Buttons
Hide Buttons