A lawyer representing Azimio leader at the presidential petition has cited inconsistencies in the results entered in forms 34A, 34B and 34C as enough reason to nullify the August 9 presidential election results
Julie Soweto, the lawyer representing Raila Odinga and Martha Karua said during her submission at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, said the affidavit of one Arnold Oginga highlighted how results from the three different forms 34 had differences totalling 180,000 votes.
Soweto argued that owing to the “small margin” that Ruto was declared the winner of the presidential race, the 180,000 votes discrepancy could tilt the election outcome.
She at the same time Soweto questioned why in several polling stations more voters cast their ballots for the president than other elective seat candidates.
Soweto said the argument that stray votes contributed to a higher number of votes for presidency than other elective seats wasn’t convincing.
“In Kirinyaga County, for example, there was an average of 33 stray ballot papers per polling station. That’s not possible ,” she said.
Form 34A is used to record presidential results at the polling station level while Form 34B, on the other hand, is a collation of all the forms 34A, and recorded at the constituency tallying centre.
Form 34C is a collation of all forms 34B. It is recorded at the national tallying centre, and it’s what the IEBC chairperson uses to establish who has won the presidential election.
Also Read:A Divided Commission Cannot Preside Over an Election That Would Give It Legitimacy – James Orengo
Discussion about this post