Former Deputy Speaker Farah Maalim before a Nairobi election court during cross examination by IEBC lawyer Issa Mansour on Monday October 16, 2017/PHOTO BY S.A.N.
House Majority leader Aden Duale’s rival Farah Maalim has been put to task to explain the irregularities he has cited in his affidavit.
He courted trouble after failing to explain all the allegations he had made that the KIMS were compromised.
IEBC said Malim produced fake form 35A since they don’t have IEBC Logos.
The commission said the documents filed in court by Maalim were not from the commission.
He didn’t personally see people bribing but claims negotiations of money going on, on various polling stations.
“I didn’t see the bribery literary or anyone being bribed but I saw a crowd negotiating” he said.
While being cross examined by IEBC lawyer Issa Mansour he said he did not report to the commission or make a formal report to police or commisdion about his alleged malpractice.
All through the cross examination, Mr Farah did not table any evidence to show how how form 34 A and IEBC officials were involved in election malpractices in the alleged polling stations.
He confirmed to court that Wiper Party agents signed form 35 A in 97 polling stations.
He further informed the court that during the election date at Bura college polling station he alleged to be chased and his brother in-law who was driving him was allegedly assaulted.
He informed the court that in Jamhuri polling station the were election normalities in that form 34A were not signed by the presiding officers.
He does not have any evidence or information which polling stations that the results were announced are different from those counted in the 97 polling stations in Garissa Constituency.
There is no incriminating evidence produced in court by way of photos or videos showing how the ballot were broken before counting.
Maalim did not launch a formal complain with constituency commission offices that the IEBC officials allegedly campaigned for Aden Duale as he claims.
He has not also sworn affidavit in court showing there was  violence in some polling stations and voters intimidated and chased away.
He did not table in court any particulars which polling stations his agents were chased away.
He informed the court that some poling stations there were multiple voting and he could not give evidence of the names and numbers who voted twice as he claims.
None of his agents filed affidavit in court showing that form 34A were not accurate and verifiable as he alleges.