The IEBC Chairman has moved to the Supreme Court seeking clarification on if he is allowed to correct errors in result forms from constituencies.
He cited Supreme Court’s ruling on September 1 which nullified the polls stating that he erred by announcing the Presidential results without verifying what was in the forms.
Chebukati noted that the judges’ pronouncement on this, conflicts an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeal.
“Clearly, there was an oversight in the judgment, to the extent that the (Supreme) Court did not complete its directions on how the 2nd Respondent (IEBC chairman) should handle or treat any discrepancy in the tallies in Forms 34B when compared to the tally of the results in Forms 34A,” Mr Chebukati said in an affidavit as reported by the Star.
In June, the Court of Appeal expressly ruled that the IEBC Chairperson cannot, “correct, vary, confirm, alter, modify or adjust the results transmitted to the National Tallying Centre from the Constituency Tallying Centre.
Through a five-judge bench at the Appellate Court, it was ruled that any results announced by the returning officer at the constituency were final and only an election court could change any discrepancies reported.
In his petition to the Supreme Court, the poll agency Chair wants clear directions on what he should do in the event he notices there are errors in Forms 34B which are used to announce the Presidential results in the constituency.
Results in Form 34B should tally with those in Forms34A which are from 40, 883 polling stations.
And the final tally reflected in Form 34B is populated to make up the Form 34C which the Chair uses to announce the winner of a Presidential election.
The chair added: “In its judgment found at page 159 paragraph 365-367, I am required to verify the Forms 34B against the result in Forms 34A. It was necessary for this Honourable Court to complete that direction by stating what I am supposed to do in case I find a discrepancy between the two forms.”
Chebukati said the issue should be clarified immediately because it poses a real danger as the country heads to repeat polls on October 26.
“I am apprehensive that, unless this issue is clarified before the elections scheduled for October 26, 2017, the result of that election will expose the 1st and 2nd Respondents to another challenge and possible contempt of court proceedings,” he stated in the affidavit.