Exposing Shallow Legal “Analysis” on KTN
I have never heard or seen a lawyer so giddy in spewing nonsense than what I have watched with this Harrison Kinjanjui who makes the D student moron who has never articulated a single legal principal or argument look like your ordinary below average lawyer.
This Kinjanjui, who was and still maybe Waititu’s lawyer besides being previously arrested and charged with witness tampering doesn’t know what he’s talking about; in fact, all he propagates here is nothing but feel good nonsense that doesn’t stand up to the law and facts.
First, he claims that NASA should make a “formal invitation” for the Court to reverse its ruling on spoilt votes. False. All NASA has to do is raise the issue as an issue in its pleadings and they have; they may also choose to address it in oral arguments or in response to questions but it’s enough they have raised it and the Court must now address it.
Because this is the case, this Kinjanjui’s assertion that failure to make the “formal invitation” is a “shipwreck” must be dismissed as nonsense.
Second, this Kinyanjui says he found it “shocking” NASA’s allegation that the voting system was hacked without producing the evidence. Two things about this: 1. There’s nothing “shocking” about any system being hacked, let alone one as less sophisticated as IEBC compared to more sophisticated systems that have been hacked and (2) NASA has an outstanding request to be given access to the servers its the only way they can LEGALLY prove hacking, access which has thus far been refused because IEBC knows providing access to the servers is to provide a noose to hang themselves.
Third, this Kinjanjui claims NASA “shifted” to making a case about algorithm based tallying giving Uhuru 11% advantage over Raila. Again, false. NASA did not “shift” anything they have been making both cases from before and only argues algorithm issue because they have as yet to get access to the servers to obtain evidence of hacking and other manipulation when they have and can proof with available evidence the algorithm manipulations.
This Kinyanjui says NASA argues that 11,000 forms are questionable because they’re not gazetted or not signed. Confusion at best or total ignorance of facts and issues at worst; to begin with, there’s nothing in the petition about “11,000” forms, rather, the number is 11,883 if you can’t be precise about details like this, you fail in your argument as a lawyer. That aside, the core issue NASA argues about the 11,883 number is IEBC announced the bogus presidential results before obtaining forms 34As from these 11,883 polling stations. Common sense would tell you that’s a flawed tally not taking into account these many polling stations and is reason enough to invalidate the presidential tally announced.
Fourth, this Kinyanjui says IEBC response will be a “walk in the park;” we’ve seen the arrogance before Jubilee guaranteeing to win elections before any votes were cast and now we know why: they knew their chefs were in the kitchen waiting to cook numbers. While it may be the case the Supreme Court could go the Mutunga way, I wouldn’t be too sure about that. We may be in for a surprise the Court actually rules on the petition based on the evidence and law, not any other improper grounds!
Fifth, this Kinyanjui calls NASA legal minds and advisers “cohorts and acolytes,” which is all you need to know to dismiss everything he says as nonsense for a good lawyer worth his name in gold doesn’t belittle those on the opposing side; imagine the respect this Kinyanjui would earn by saying, “NASA and its capable lawyers have in their wisdom advised Raila to go to court, but in my humble opinion blah, blah, blah–that’s what good lawyers do, anything else is what you expect political hacks to say.
Sixth, this Kinyanjui says he’s “curious whether Raila will accept, embrace and live with an unfavorable decision.” The answer is, it depends! If the Court disposes the case in a manner that can be objectively determined to be fair, impartial and consistent with the facts and evidence adduced during the hearing, then, sure, Raila and NASA will “accept, embrace and live” with the decision as we did in 2013, even though the decision was the worst the Court could render. If the Court does the opposite, then Raila and NASA will have no choice but to accept the decision as final but that doesn’t preclude other legal means to continue to challenge what we believe to be an affront on justice and democracy, if the evidence so points and our objective friends and supporters so conclude.
Seventh, this Kinjanjui says Supreme Court judges “will not invent any evidence, will not bend any evidence, it’s what Raila puts on the table” that will determine the case. That’s generally the case and we, of course, expect that to be the case. However, let’s not fool ourselves to believing it’s always the case case in point being 2013. And that’s not a concept confined to Kenya, ask Al Gore and what the US Supreme Court did to his case in 2000 when we know they made a political, not legal decision or one based on facts and law.
Last but not least, this Kinyanjui speaks of the burden of proof and who discharges it first, which is merely echoing the Mutunga Court ruling on the issue but expect novel nuances to be argued this time to refine and crystallize the issue.
Note I have not bothered to address what the other lawyer said when this Kinjanjui was not busy hogging the time because he was generally right in what he said.