BY SAM ALFAN.
Raila Odinga’s running mate in the August 9 presidential polls Martha Karua has moved to the East Africa Court of Justice after Kenya’s Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging William Ruto’s win.
Karua who is NARC-Kenya party leader filed a reference in the Arusha-based court seeking a declaration that the contested polls were not held in compliance with the appliilaws.
The former minister has maintained that although Ruto win was upheld by the Supreme Court, she will not recognize him as the President.
In the reference, Karua says the Attorney General’s acts and omissions violated principles of the rule of law, good governance and human and peoples’ rights as enshrined in the EAC Treaty, and other African and international law.
Karua also wants the EAC court to declare that the presidential elections and the results declared was not done in accordance with the provisions of the electoral laws and the principles governing elections.
” A declaration that the 2nd Respondent, being the person charged with responsibility for ensuring compliance by the Community with the applicable treaty and other standards governing the conduct of elections, failed or neglected to take necessary steps to ensure that the elections aforesaid complied with the EAC Treaty,” pleads Karua.
She seeks for an order directing the Attorney General to conduct prompt, efficient, impartial, transparent, independent and professional investigations into all violations enumerated above, and to bring all those responsible to justice.
Karua also wants the EAC to issue an order that the Attorney General to make full reparations, including paying compensation and damages to her and survivors.
“An order directing the 1st Respondent to take measures that foster rehabilitation, including provision of medical, psychological, legal and social services to survivors and their relatives,” adds Karua.
According to Karua, Attorney General should issue a public apology to the survivors and their relatives and also to adopt constitutional, legislative, policy, institutional, administrative and other measures to remedy the violations of her rights.
She further wants the EAC Court to issue permanent order restraining the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF), Special Forces Command (SFC) and the intelligence services from involving themselves or interfering with civilian policing, or with electoral processes in future
In her court documents, she shall adduce evidence and arguments at the trial to prove that president William Ruto was declared by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) of Kenya on 15th August,2022, and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Kenya on 05th August 2022, as having been duly elected as President was announced and affirmed in clear violation of the applicable laws.
She further adds that the said IEBC failed to conduct the elections or to announce the results, and further that the Supreme Court of Kenya failed to properly adjudicate the resultant disputes, in accordance with the Constitution and laws of Kenya, as well as applicable EAC law, AU treaty law, international law and the principles governing elections and electoral dispute resolution.
She said the non-compliance completely vitiated the announcement and the election.
In her statement of filing, Karua adds that the Supreme Court undermined the rule of law by violating the right to a fair trial. It did not allow for a proper scrutiny of the election technology, and, where it did, it surrendered its conduct to one of the parties, thus the IEBC and declined to hear the petitioners’ findings.
She says the scrutiny of a sample of ballot papers uncovered multiple serious errors and breaches of electoral laws and regulations, but to no legal effect.
The Court also found that the Chairperson of the IEBC conducted the election in an unlawful manner, but these findings, again, had no legal consequences.
She adds their petitions were dismissed with epithets and name-calling and they believe this conduct, so uncharacteristic of an apex court, was an attempt to clothe the Supreme Court judges’ refusal to consider the available evidence with some spurious semblance of legitimacy.
