Raila lists 11 instances Chebukati allegedly broke the law

In Raila’s petition filed at the Supreme Court, Chebukati is heavily mentioned and is accused of committing 11 electoral offences and ethical breaches.Azimio la Umoja One Kenya alliance presidential candidate filed a petition challenging the presidential election results released by IEBC chair Wafula Chebukati.

In the petition filed at the Supreme Court, Chebukati is heavily mentioned and is accused of committing 11 electoral offences and ethical breaches.

Odinga’s lawyers also gave instances in which they believe the 2nd respondent, as he is referred to, committed the alleged offence.

They accused the IEBC chair of making entries that he knew to be false contrary to section 6 (a) of the Election Offences Act No. 37 of 2016.

IEBC Chairperson Wafula Chebukati hands Azimio coalition’s presidential candidate Raila Odinga official clearance to vie in the 2022 election on June 5, 2022 at the Bomas of Kenya National Tallying Centre
IEBC Chairperson Wafula Chebukati hands Azimio coalition’s presidential candidate Raila Odinga official clearance to vie in the 2022 election on June 5, 2022 at the Bomas of Kenya National Tallying Centre

“On 15th August 2022, the 2nd Respondent made false entries in Form 34C which he knew were false to declare the 9th Respondent the President-elect.”

Chebukati was accused of omitting to include results in a breach of his official duty contrary to section 6 (j) of the Election Offences Act No. 37 of 2016. Azimio argued that the results announced by the IEBC chair did not include votes from about 38 constituencies.

They also claimed that Chebukati wilfully contravened the law to give undue advantage to a presidential candidate contrary to section 6 (1) of the Election Offences Act No. 37 of 2016.

“On 15th August 2022, the 2nd Respondent wilfully contravened Article 81(e) (ii, iii, iv, v) by, without reason or justification, wilfully refusing to share and circulate the final presidential results with the presidential candidates’ Chief Agents, Observers, Media or even his fellow members of the commission so as to declare a fraudulent result.”

Chebukati was accused of Indirectly procuring election materials in connection with the election without the authority of the Commission contrary to section 13(e) of the Election Offences Act No. 37 of 2016.

READ: Judge throws out CJ Koome’s new rules on hearing of presidential results petition

“On or about July 2022, the 2nd Respondent without discussion with or consensus from the other six (6) Commissioners, illegally and unilaterally procured additional unsecured election materials and electronic devices containing sensitive information through three foreign nationals from Venezuela.”

Azimio la Umoja accused the IEBC chair of obstructing election officers in the execution of their lawful duties contrary to section 13(i) of the Election Offences Act No. 37 of 2016.

“The 2nd Respondent obstructed the working of the other six (6) Commissioners by denying them access to the portal as well as the verification process of the physical Forms 34A against those uploaded on the portal.”

Odinga accused Chebukati of making a false statement knowing the statement to be false contrary to section 13 (j) of the Election Offences Act No. 37 of 2016.

“On 15th August 2022, the 2nd Respondent wrongly and wilfully made a false statement stating that the 9th Respondent had garnered 7,176,141 votes, a representation of 50.49% of the votes cast thus making him the President-elect.”

They said that the IEBC chair broke the law by publishing and disseminating information with the intention to influence the outcome of the election contrary to section 13(j) of the Election Offences Act No. 37 of 2016.

“The 2nd Respondent published and uploaded an inaccurate Form 34C on the 1st Respondent’s portal to manipulate and distort the presidential election results to declare an inaccurate and invalid outcome.”

Raila claimed that Chebukati intentionally altered the IEBC network and portal contrary to section 17(b) of the Election Offences Act No. 37 of 2016.

“On or about August 2022, the 2nd Respondent altered the IEBC network and portal to disable access by other parties, and presidential candidates’ Chief Agents, Observers, Media or even his fellow members of the Commission so as to declare a fraudulent result.”

Azimio la Umoja coalition alleged that the IEBC chair altered information in the IEBC portal knowing he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public contrary to section 17(c) of the Election Offences Act No.37 of 2016.

“On or about August 2022, the 2nd Respondent intentionally altered electronically directly or indirectly altered the results of the Forms 34A uploaded to the IEBC portal so as to influence the outcome of the presidential election and to declare a fraudulent result.”

Odinga accused Chebukati of knowingly inputting, altering and deleting computer data with the intent that the result be considered or acted upon for legal purposes as if it were authentic, regardless of whether or not the data is directly readable and intelligible contrary to section 17(h) of the Election Offences Act No. 37 of 2016.

“The 2nd Respondent tampered with and altered the contents of the Forms 34A that were uploaded on the 1st Respondent’s portal by officers in the polling stations nationwide with the intention do declare a fraudulent result.”

Raila claimed that Chebukati used his office to improperly confer a benefit on a presidential candidate contrary to section 46 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act No. 3 of 2003.

“The 2nd Respondent used his office as the National Returning Officer to usurp the powers, duties and responsibilities of the commissioners and unilaterally and secretly tallied, verified and declared to declare a fraudulent outcome.”