Sunday, April 13, 2014
As
the Jubilee government marked one year in office on Wednesday,
interesting details have emerged of how the Uhuru Kenyatta legal team
that fought the presidential election petition filed by rival Raila
Odinga was assembled long before the General Election. Two months to the
holding of the March 4, 2013 General Election, the Jubilee presidential
campaign had set up a legal team to prepare for a possible petition in
case their candidate won, The People can disclose.
The earlier preparation was based on hypothesis that opponent Raila Odinga had never conceded defeat in two previous presidential elections he had participated in, hence it was more than likely he would go to court if he lost, the legitimacy of the electoral process notwithstanding. “The team was assembled in advance to prepare for all possibilities, including our side filing a petition in case the candidate lost in circumstances deemed petitionable,” said one of the lawyers who constituted the team.
Subsequently, a team of high-profile lawyers was assembled and secretly housed in the seventhfloor of an office block in the city. Their role would to play the ‘devil’s advocate’ by exploring all the possible angles from which Raila could petition if he lost the presidential election to Uhuru. “By this time it had become clear that either Uhuru or Raila would be the winner, going by head-to-head assessments posted by pollsters,” says another source who closely liaised with the legal team, adding that in such expected close calla, it is likely likely that a dispute over the outcome could erupt.
Jubilee candidate Uhuru’s advance legal team included top-notch lawyers, Fred Ngatia, Njoroge Regeru and Ken Ogeto. Others were Wanja Wambugu, Muthoni Gichohi, Sankale Kantai, Tom Macharia and Anthony Macharia. Not to leave anything to chance, Team Uhuru had also hired in advance the services of election expert, Winnie Guchu, who had previously served as a member of the defunct Electoral Commission of Kenya and observed elections in over a dozen countries.
The team rehearsed for all possible scenarios and filed mock defence against petition points they assessed Raila could raise. Says the inside source, one side of the team was isolated to act as the would-be petitioner while one side acted the defence. “We explored all possible points the petitioner could use in our electoral system and used them to stretch our defence to the limit. We also explored issues we could raise in our own petition if we lost and it came to filing one,” said the legalsource. The team first knew their rehearsal might not be in vain when, on March 9, Raila called a pressed conference and declined to concede defeat.
“After that press conference, we dusted our notes and went through them all over again, just waiting for the formal petition to be filed,” says the lawyer. On the day – March 16, 2013 – when Cord lead counsel, George Oraro, walked to the Supreme Court registry to formally file the 33-page petition, Uhuru’s legal team had spent the entire morning meeting at the seventh floor office availed to them, dusting up their notes and eagerly waiting to see what would be contained in the massive tome filed by the opponent.
Immediately the Uhuru legal team laid hands on the Cord petition, copies were made and each member of the advance team given forty-five minutes to study it, says the source. A source in the advance team tells The People: “After quickly perusing through the Raila petition, we exchanged knowing glances. Much of what was contained in it was along the lines on which we had anticipated and rehearsed thoroughly to prepare for likely defence.” Uhuru’s legal team proceeded to isolate the various issues raised by Raila and to assign one or two lawyers to dissect each of them and report to the plenary.
Within a few hours, the team was able to outline key lines of Uhuru’s defence to be accompanied by an elaborate affidavit by Winnie Guchu. Meanwhile, Deputy President-elect William Ruto’s legal team, led by advocate Katwa Kigen, was brought on board for a joint offensive. In their defences, filed in the Supreme Court on March 20, last year, the Jubilee Alliance luminaries were able to powerfully argue their case that Raila did not specifically accuse them of any wrong-doing, but merely blamed the Independent Elections and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), and its Chairman, Isaak Hassan, of mismanaging the elections.
In a 17-point executive summary, Uhuru’s defence thrust of argument would be that Raila had invited the Supreme Court to stage a coup against constitutional governance in Kenya since the petition was seeking to invalidate not only the presidential vote, but also the parliamentary, gubernatorial, senatorial and county assembly elections. “The petition is replete with falsehoods and is a robust effort to exaggerate facts and circumstances, which are intended to secure for the petitioner an unjust advantage,” Uhuru defence would tell the Supreme Court.
Uhuru would further put it to the Supreme Court that through the petition, Raila “intended to trigger a crisis in the Executive and Legislative arms of Government to enable him negotiate and bully his way to power in contravention of the Constitution.” As for the much talked about Raila 839 page “evidence” which the Supreme Court declined to admit, Uhuru’s legal team had dismissed it as “an attempt to ambush the court by introducing new issues not outlined in the petition before the court.”
- The People
The earlier preparation was based on hypothesis that opponent Raila Odinga had never conceded defeat in two previous presidential elections he had participated in, hence it was more than likely he would go to court if he lost, the legitimacy of the electoral process notwithstanding. “The team was assembled in advance to prepare for all possibilities, including our side filing a petition in case the candidate lost in circumstances deemed petitionable,” said one of the lawyers who constituted the team.
Subsequently, a team of high-profile lawyers was assembled and secretly housed in the seventhfloor of an office block in the city. Their role would to play the ‘devil’s advocate’ by exploring all the possible angles from which Raila could petition if he lost the presidential election to Uhuru. “By this time it had become clear that either Uhuru or Raila would be the winner, going by head-to-head assessments posted by pollsters,” says another source who closely liaised with the legal team, adding that in such expected close calla, it is likely likely that a dispute over the outcome could erupt.
Jubilee candidate Uhuru’s advance legal team included top-notch lawyers, Fred Ngatia, Njoroge Regeru and Ken Ogeto. Others were Wanja Wambugu, Muthoni Gichohi, Sankale Kantai, Tom Macharia and Anthony Macharia. Not to leave anything to chance, Team Uhuru had also hired in advance the services of election expert, Winnie Guchu, who had previously served as a member of the defunct Electoral Commission of Kenya and observed elections in over a dozen countries.
The team rehearsed for all possible scenarios and filed mock defence against petition points they assessed Raila could raise. Says the inside source, one side of the team was isolated to act as the would-be petitioner while one side acted the defence. “We explored all possible points the petitioner could use in our electoral system and used them to stretch our defence to the limit. We also explored issues we could raise in our own petition if we lost and it came to filing one,” said the legalsource. The team first knew their rehearsal might not be in vain when, on March 9, Raila called a pressed conference and declined to concede defeat.
“After that press conference, we dusted our notes and went through them all over again, just waiting for the formal petition to be filed,” says the lawyer. On the day – March 16, 2013 – when Cord lead counsel, George Oraro, walked to the Supreme Court registry to formally file the 33-page petition, Uhuru’s legal team had spent the entire morning meeting at the seventh floor office availed to them, dusting up their notes and eagerly waiting to see what would be contained in the massive tome filed by the opponent.
Immediately the Uhuru legal team laid hands on the Cord petition, copies were made and each member of the advance team given forty-five minutes to study it, says the source. A source in the advance team tells The People: “After quickly perusing through the Raila petition, we exchanged knowing glances. Much of what was contained in it was along the lines on which we had anticipated and rehearsed thoroughly to prepare for likely defence.” Uhuru’s legal team proceeded to isolate the various issues raised by Raila and to assign one or two lawyers to dissect each of them and report to the plenary.
Within a few hours, the team was able to outline key lines of Uhuru’s defence to be accompanied by an elaborate affidavit by Winnie Guchu. Meanwhile, Deputy President-elect William Ruto’s legal team, led by advocate Katwa Kigen, was brought on board for a joint offensive. In their defences, filed in the Supreme Court on March 20, last year, the Jubilee Alliance luminaries were able to powerfully argue their case that Raila did not specifically accuse them of any wrong-doing, but merely blamed the Independent Elections and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), and its Chairman, Isaak Hassan, of mismanaging the elections.
In a 17-point executive summary, Uhuru’s defence thrust of argument would be that Raila had invited the Supreme Court to stage a coup against constitutional governance in Kenya since the petition was seeking to invalidate not only the presidential vote, but also the parliamentary, gubernatorial, senatorial and county assembly elections. “The petition is replete with falsehoods and is a robust effort to exaggerate facts and circumstances, which are intended to secure for the petitioner an unjust advantage,” Uhuru defence would tell the Supreme Court.
Uhuru would further put it to the Supreme Court that through the petition, Raila “intended to trigger a crisis in the Executive and Legislative arms of Government to enable him negotiate and bully his way to power in contravention of the Constitution.” As for the much talked about Raila 839 page “evidence” which the Supreme Court declined to admit, Uhuru’s legal team had dismissed it as “an attempt to ambush the court by introducing new issues not outlined in the petition before the court.”
- The People
No comments:
Post a Comment