supreme court
Supreme Court Judges

The supreme court say that Raila Odinga’s withdrawal and that his letter of withdrawal only showed intent and was not legally binding.

Justice Smokin Wanjala said that the constitution does not contemplate withdrawal from an elections.

The judges say that the decisions of the case of Raila 2013, paragraph 152 was applicable where questions asked hypothetically by the attorney general, Githu Muigai were not binding¬† but were merely obiter dicta which means can ‘persuade the court but is not binding.’

The supreme court judges said that the nomination was not the substance of nullification  and therefore there was no need to conduct fresh nominations.

The court says that the withdrawal of Raila Odinga was a mere intention and therefore did not have any legal effect on the elections. The judges were of the opinion that withdrawal does not not constitute a reason for an election to be postponed.

Justice Wanjala also noted that they were not intimidated by the choice of words by the third respondent, President Uhuru Kenyatta who had referred to them as ‘Wakora.’

”The dressing of jubilee women who adorned military regalia to be seen as intimidation for those who did not support the third respondent were mere allegations and did not have tangible evidence,” the judge added.

Read: How the Supreme Court Judges Played Jubilee in the Presidential Petition

On the question of fresh nominations, the judge said that the IEBC was not at fault for excluding some parties, and that here was no need for fresh nominations for the October 26 repeat presidential election.

The Wafula Chebukati led commission ‘was within the law to announce results of the Presidential election despite lack of participation from 25 constituencies where boycott, and politically instigated violence was reported,’ the court has ruled.

Do you have a story you want told? Do you know of a sensitive story you would like us to get our hands on? Email your news TIPS to [email protected]