How strong is NASA Petition – #NASAPetition

by Odipo Riaga · Published August 19, 2017 · Updated August 19, 2017

In 2013, CORD filed a presidential petition asking the Supreme Court to nullify the presidential election based on the argument that the President elect by then Uhuru Kenyatta did not achieve the 50%+1 threshold. In 2017, NASA (which is basically CORD plus Mudavadi and Isaac Rutto), has filed a petition challenging the reelection of President Uhuru Kenyatta, this time not based on the 50%+1 constitutional requirement, but based on the constitutional requirement of a simple, free, fair and credible elections. The question in many minds right now is, how strong is NASA Petition?

NASA Petition is strong with watertight evidence
NASA Petition has nothing shaking
Let the Constitution decide

NASA Petition is strong with watertight evidence

Last night at exactly 11.32PM, the Supreme Court officially received the NASA Petition, a petition that according to Senior Counsel James Orengo, had no less than 22,000 pages of evidence. The bulk of the evidence, Orengo explained, were documents detailing electoral malpractices in several polling stations in almost every county.

Other parts of the evidence as summarized in a press statement released by NASA Coalition contain information on how several (~56%) of forms 34A and 34B had errors ranging from statutory documents not signed by Returning Officers to other forms having one Presiding Officer signing more than one forms 34A.

The summary of the press statement by NASA Coalition convey the feeling that the gist of the matter is the way the declaration of the final results were made. “It has come to pass that by the time of making that declaration, the IEBC was yet to receive 11,883 polling stations results”. the statement reads in part.

Although the above seem to be the summary of the evidence presented by NASA, the fact that the total documents filed at the Supreme Court surpassed 25,000 pages compiled by some 25 lawyers suggests that the evidence is broader and probably more detailed than we would like to imagine. The bulk of the evidence, although scary, shouldn’t give hope to diehard NASA supporters as it could be lacking the prerequisite quality. As I said elsewhere, those evidence files for NASA Petition are scary. I hope they are not only quantitatively bulky but qualitatively too.

NASA Petition has nothing shaking

To us laymen just the sight of the evidence presented by NASA at the Supreme Court, which was carried by a track, suggests a ground shaking watertight petition that cannot be dismissed by wishful thinking. However, renowned lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi who helped tear apart the 2013 CORD petition, and who is again set to represent IEBC in the current petition, thinks the current petition has nothing that can shake even a floating pebble.

…reading just this…nothing earth shaking…but let us wait for the entire petition @WehliyeMohamed @DonaldBKipkorir https://t.co/ILCq571sJL

— Ahmednasir Abdullahi (@ahmednasirlaw) August 18, 2017

A Twitter user Arnold Okudo thinks that the heavy evidence presented by NASA might not amount to much, as it could amount to nothing more than some heavydence.

I don’t NASA has watertight evidence on this petition. They only have some HEAVYDence..but let’s wait for the pre-trial conference

— Bggy (@ArnoldOkudo) August 19, 2017

What is common amongst those who are dismissing the heavy evidence as nothing more than heavydence is the agreement that we all have to wait and see the entire petition or the pre-trial conference to be able to judge objectively. I say let us wait fo the actual proceedings in the Supreme Court.

Let the Constitution Decide

The NASA Petition is based on Article 38 Section 2 of the Constitution that reads, “Every citizen has the right to free, fair and regular elections based on universal suffrage and the free expression of the will of the electors” and Article 81 (e) of the same Constitution that reads, “The electoral system shall comply with the following principles: (iv) transparent; and (v) administered in an impartial, neutral, efficient, accurate and accountable manner.”

If the letter of those constitutional clauses will be the only basis under which the Supreme Court will rule for or against the NASA Petition, then expect the Supreme Court to rule in favour of the petition. However, we know that there is something called the spirit of the Constitution, and in the spirit of the Constitution, the Supreme Court will rely on the argument that electoral malpractices must be significantly grievous and widespread as to warrant cancellation of the entire presidential elections. This second part is what NASA must prove to the satisfaction of the judges.