President Uhuru Kenyatta’s legal team has poked holes into an argument by the petitioner that the repeat polls should be nullified on the basis of lack of nomination.
Lawyer Fred Ngatia told a six-judge bench at the apex court Thursday that fresh elections did not need nominations.
He argued nominations are mandatory in case of a general election or in the event that the office of the President goes vacant which in this case is not so.
The argument was lodged by petitioners Njonjo Mue, ICJ Kenyan chapter Chairman and Khelef Khalifa Chairman Muhuri.
A similar claim has been made to the court by the second petitioner, former Kilome MP Harun Mwau.
Ngatia added IEBC did not flout any law by failing to conduct nominations.
“IEBC cannot be faulted in obeying the law set out in the September 1 judgment that ordered fresh polls to be held within 60 days,” he said in his submission adding it would have been difficult to conduct nominations within 60 days.
He said two High Court rulings allowing other candidates to vie in the repeat polls took away the need to conduct nominations.
“This election was regulated by two High court judgments. The one made on September 5 and the one made on October 1… IEBC cannot, therefore, be faulted for ignoring nominations yet it obeyed all the laws set out in the two judgments.”
The lawyer urged the court to dismiss the case citing that NASA withdrawal from the race was an abandonment of an electoral process therefore, the petition lacks merit.
“NASA leader Raila Odinga did not withdraw from the race…he just abandoned it as he did not officially sign forms 24A.
They should not enjoy the abandonment. I urge this court to hold and find that the cases before it are not merited,” he further stated.
Chief Justice David Maraga together with DCJ Philomena Mwilu, justices Smokin Wanjala, J.B Ojwang, Njoki Ndungu and Mohammed Ibrahim turned down NASA application to be enjoined in the case as an interested party on Tuesday.
On the issue of controversial election laws which came into effect on November 2, Ngatia told the court that due process was followed and as such, their legality cannot be questioned.
Ngatia in arguing out the question of low voter turnout during the polls said the total turnout of voters, 38.84 per cent was way above the threshold required for Uhuru to be declared the winner of the elections.
Lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi in his submission said the petitioners did not even vote on October 26.
He said they have no right to petition an election which they did not take part in.
“A person who can challenge an election is a person, not just a registered voter, but a person who exercised that right,” said Ahmednasir.
He also told the judges that the petition is not fueled by public interest and therefore, it should be dismissed.
“The last petition is nothing more but a fascination of lay men. It has nothing to do with public interest.”
But the CJ took the lawyer to task to prove that the two petitioners did not vote.
In response, he said nowhere in their affidavits have they indicated that they voted.