•The country’s Supreme Court nullifies incumbent president’s re-election, orders rerun
THE Supreme Court of Kenya has set an audacious standard for the independence of the judiciary, not only in Kenya, but across the whole of Africa. According to reports, this is the first time a presidential election is nullified in Africa, by a court, and in this instance the re-election of an incumbent president. This is despite that many of such elections were manifestly floored. In Kenya, the apex court held that the electoral commission: “failed, neglected, or refused to conduct the presidential election in a manner consistent with the dictates of the constitution.”
We commend the courage of the Kenyan Supreme Court, and recommend similar standards across the continent, whenever the need arises. That is the way to ensure the sanctity of elections, which for now are more of a farce, in many African countries. In the result announced by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, President Uhuru Kenyatta polled 54 percent of the votes, while his rival Raila Odinga polled 44 percent, a difference of 1.4 million votes. Indeed, many independent observers claimed that the election was peaceful and substantially reflected the will of the people.
But the Supreme Court held that the electoral commission: “committed irregularities and illegalities in the transmission of results” and that the “irregularities affected the integrity of the poll.” A week to the election, the official in charge of voting technology, Christopher Chege Msando,was murdered and the electronic system broke down. So, the two paper forms, one from the 40,883 polling stations and the other from the 290 constituencies, which party agents were required to endorse before they are electronically transmitted to the national tallying centre got marred. In the absence of the electronic transmitters, the commission resorted to using text messages to transmit the results.
While we commend President Kenyatta for accepting the judgment, we condemn his attempt to denigrate the institution and independence of the judiciary, by his cynical remark that: “millions of Kenyans queued, made their choice, and six people have decided that they will go against the will of the people.” In case he lacks philosophical understanding, the six justices represent the millions President Kenyatta referred to; as they are trained and empowered by the constitution to adjudicate in such disputes.
The lesson for Nigeria is that the Kenyan judiciary refused to pander to the government in power, unlike what happens here. For instance, in 2007, the majority of the panel of justices of our Supreme Court failed to upturn the election, despite the glaring irregularities. Again in Kenya, the final judgment came quick, unlike here, where election petitions and pre-election matters will still be going back and forth in court, while the term in dispute runs out.
As for the international monitors, the decision of the Supreme Court shows that they got it wrong. Whether they did not exert the standards applicable to advanced democracy, or they were misled by a compromised electoral body, or they were compromised themselves, the jury is still out. It is also noteworthy that while holding the electoral body responsible for the irregularities, the judges exonerated President Kenyatta of any infraction.
While Chief Justice David Maraga and his panel should hold their heads high, Kenyans and indeed the world is keenly awaiting the full judgment, to appreciate the detailed reasons for the annulment of the election, and to lay to rest any suspicion of bias. We congratulate Kenyans and urge them to maintain their peace, prepare for the next election within the 60 days window ordered by the court, enjoy the maturing of their democracy, and regardless of whoever wins the rerun, eschew violence.