31 March 2016

LIVE: Supreme Court ruling so far



1. Assertion of voting without opening ballot boxes was not supported by any evidence so it was not proved.






2. Evidence on record show that returning officers opened envelopes where not all DR forms were received .






3. Petitioner’s agents being chased, we find it lacking & with no evidence to back it up since the agents signed on DR forms. In some cases the petitioner’s polling agents were indeed denied information at polling stations.






4. There was no evidence to back claims that anybody ineligible to vote actually voted as alleged by the petitioner.






5. On multiple voting. Two of petitioners affidavits are based on hearsay. Therefore no evidence to back the claims






6. Claim of polling before and after time had no concrete evidence.






7. Evidence in affidavits before court doesn’t prove there was pre ticking of votes anywhere.






8. EC did not comply with its duty in failing to deliver voting material in time. It was a sign of gross incompetence.






9. The petitioner blamed the late delivery of voting materials to some polling stations on EC. EC in defence- voting was extended to 7:00pm.






10. EC in defence submitted that not only the BVVK machine was used but the voter’s ID, national ID and the Voter’s register. The petitioner submitted that EC used the unreliable BVVK to identify voters which was slow thus affecting the process.






11. EC also submitted that the constitution allows them to use National ID data to compile, maintain & update voter’s register, EC went ahead to submit that they compiled, maintained and updated the voter’s register as guided by the constitution.






12. EC submitted that the extension of nomination deadlines wasn’t intended to favor any candidate as alleged by the petitioner.






13. The petitioner alleged that EC illegally nominated the 1st respondent. EC denied this basing on Lumumba’s affidavit.






14. On lack of transparency, the petitioner did not provide evidence that EC received results from an illegal tally centre in Naguru.






15. We recognise the 24hrs given to EC to announce. However EC hasn’t provided any explanation why other results weren’t read.






0 comments:

Post a Comment

Theme Support

Popular Posts

Recent Posts

Unordered List

Text Widget

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.