President-elect William Ruto’s lawyers have defended his victory over Azimio leader Raila Odinga who cited irregularities in this year’s Form 34As.
During his submissions before the Judges, Ruto’s lawyer senior counsel Katwa Kigen stated that none of the Form 34As at the voting stations had been presented as having been contested at any stage.
“The petitioners do not point out the variances they are alleging exist, but most importantly, they do not come up with their tally. They do not come forward and say that this is the correct tally and it is based on what?” Kigen submitted.
He stated that during the six-day process of verifying Form 34As, the petitioners, through his agents, were pleased with the process until the final tallies were completed and revealed a win for a party other than the one, they desired.
“We pray that you take into account that the principal witness on that issue of form 34A has adduced absolutely nothing in support of the petitioner’s case,” he said.
Kigen questioned Arnold Ochieng’s affidavit, in which he claimed possession of manipulated form 34As.
“What is contained in his affidavit is hearsay because he acknowledged that he was never an agent,” Kigen said, adding that he failed to disclose the origin of the close to twenty forms 34A which he attached to his affidavit.
Lawyer Melissa Ngania highlighted the grievance against Ruto and Rigathi Gachagua is a pattern throughout the country where the 9th respondent (William Ruto) appears to benefit from a fraudulent paddling of what is a violation of the law, they are not the issue.
“Petitioners have not slade credible tangent evidence as to paddling of the votes to the benefit of our clients in this respect to warrant to annul elections,” she said.
According to Lawyer Kiragu Kimani rule number nine of the Supreme Court presidential election rules require that when a petitioner presents a petition, they will also furnish evidence.
“Has that been done? No, the evidence of infiltration in the first instance has not been done; It is not enough to demonstrate that there were irregularities or show that there was a breach of the law. It has to go beyond that to show that it affected the outcome,” Kimani said.