Kindiki, Oraro clash on whether security council knew presidential results before meeting Chebukati

President-elect William Ruto’s lawyer Prof. Kithure Kindiki and his counterpart George Oraro, representing the Attorney General, on Friday made their submissions before the Supreme Court on whether or not their camps believe that the National Security Advisory Council (NSAC) delegation was aware of the presidential election results before meeting IEBC Chairman Wafula Chebukati.

The two were responding to a question raised on Thursday by Justice Smokin Wanjala who wondered how the Joseph Kinyua-led team allegedly attempted to sway the results in favour of one candidate without actually knowing who had won the hotly contested election.

“Are we to assume that by the time Mr Kinyua placed this call if the intention was to influence the declaration of the results or to re-engineer it...are we to assume that they already knew the results because there is no way they could have been on that mission if they had not known the results?" Justice Wanjala had posed.

And while Prof. Kindiki argued in the affirmative, alleging that the NSAC team actually knew the results beforehand, Senior Counsel Oraro asked the court to strike off the claim terming it a political statement not backed with adequate evidence.

According to Kindiki, the 4-man delegation went to the National Tallying Centre in an attempt to arm twist Chebukati to have him alter the resulst as they allegedly knew that the original one was not in the favour of the candidate they preferred.

“The four members of NSAC, by the time they went to Bomas of Kenya National Tallying Centre, and by the time the Head of Public Service placed a call on the Returning Officer of the presidential election, they knew (the results),” stated Kindiki.

“By the morning of August 15, Chebukati had issued letters to all presidential candidates and their families to be at the National Tallying Centre for the declaration of results at 3pm. Therefore, by the times these 4 State officers went to the National Tallying Centre, they knew that the verification and tallying had been completed, and what was pending was the declaration of the final results.”

He went on: “It is our submission that these 4 went to Bomas, not for any other reason, but to try and interfere with the declaration of results, and thereby try to alter the sovereign will of the people of Kenya.”

However, lawyer Oraro, sought to dismiss this claim saying Chebukati, in his own affidavit before the Supreme Court, had admitted that the final tally of the results was not out by the time he was meeting the security council.

He further challenged the court to direct Ruto’s lawyers, led by Kindiki, to provide substantive proof to the allegations, failure to which it should be struck out.

“The orders we’re seeking is for this court to dismiss the allegations by the second respondent which have not been accompanied with sufficient level of evidence to justify proof beyond reasonable doubt as required by the Constitution and as determined by this court in advance. And that evidence is beyond the political statements which have been made by my learned friend, Prof. Kindiki, which have never been put on record,” he said.

“My learned friend (Kindiki) exalts that the results were known because invitations had been sent out. To the contrary, the evidence before you by the Chairman was that he had gone to obtain the final tally only after he had met the commission. So that, even by the admission of the Chairman, he was not aware of the result until after the NSAC team had left.”

He added: “I heard shouts from my learned friend on behalf of the Deputy President of ‘crucify them.’ This has led to tweets today, and they’re many, to various members of NSAC telling them ‘we shall revisit.’ This is what this type of allegation brings, and that is why I humbly request this court to look at the nature of the allegation, the burden on the people who are making the allegation, and dismiss them if there is no proof. So that we discourage this political vilification on officers conducting their official duties.”