Okiya Omtatah: IEBC figures were ‘cooked’ to achieve a desired outcome

Activist Okiya Omtatah has submitted to the Supreme Court his plea to nullify the August Presidential election claiming that the figures presented by the IEBC were “erroneous and mysteriously formulated” at the whims of some individuals to serve a preferred purpose.

Through mathematical representations and calculations, the newly-elected Busia  Senator told the seven-judge bench that he had arrived at conflicting figures contrary to the ones announced by IEBC chairman Wafula Chebukati and his official Mr. Moses Sunkuli.

Omtatah, in this regard, called for the court to nullify the 2022 elections claiming that the process was marred with irregularities throughout the tallying process which in turn led to a faulty process.

“There is no basis for claiming that the KIEMs kits were used as the denominator, it is not possible and is not there. Whereas the chairman reported 12,065,803 people who voted represented 56.17% of the total voters, Mr Sunkuli using the same numbers arrives at the same percentage…changing the denominator but arriving at magical figures,” Omtatah claimed.

“These figures are cooked; they were worked backwards to achieve a certain figure but fortunately, in Form 34C the smoking gun is seen. Since figures don’t lie, if the math does not add up, then this court should quash the results.”

Echoing submissions from other petitioners, Omatatah similarly cited an analogy dubbed ‘military precision use in war battles’ to support his claim on the inconsistency of numbers.

“Military precision is the ability to shoot a bullet with a bullet, that is how a missile downs another missile. That is not what we are seeing here. There is no military precision in these figures,” Omtatah added.

At the same time, Senior Counsel Tom Ojienda weighed in to underscore that if the process which led to the declaration of William Ruto as the president-elect was erroneous, then the court is required to quash the whole process.

“If there is an unconstitutional act, the election cannot stand, if quantitatively as we shall demonstrate, there is non-compliance again, you will have to invalidate the election,” Prof Ojienda stated.

He added: “In an ideal situation where you would have been called to apply Article 232 on public service and Article 201 on public finance, you would have ordered a recount and then secured a winner but would only be possible if there were no unconstitutional infractions that undermine the process and therefore make it unconstitutional.’