Victor Ezeja
Opposition candidate in Kenya’s presidential election, Mr. Raila Odinga has expressed disagreement with the judgment of the Supreme Court which affirmed the victory of William Ruto in the polls.
Kenya’s Supreme Court on Monday while ruling on a petition filed by Mr. Odinga and his coalition party, upheld the August 9 presidential election in which Ruto Mr emerged as the winner.
Odinga had challenged the election result claiming that there were cases of electoral fraud during the exercise and sought the relief of the court for a forensic analysis of the country’s electoral commission’s portal used for storage and transmission of election results.
However, Justice Martha Koome who read the unanimous verdict of the court on behalf of the other six justices, held that all the claims by Odinga failed to convince the court that there were substantial irregularities that could invalidate the election and said, “This court upholds the election of the first respondent (Wiliam Ruto) as the president-elect.”
Odinga in a statement released on Monday from his presidential campaign secretariat after the ruling stated that as one who abides by the principle of rule of law and the constitution, he respects the opinion of the court, but “vehemently disagrees with their decision,” on the matter.
READ ALSO: How Kenya’s Supreme Court Affirmed Ruto’s Victory
He claimed in the statement that his lawyers had while arguing the case, presented “irrefutable evidence,” through the nine-count charges to prove their point that there were irregularities during the electoral exercise but the judges did not see it from their perspective.
Part of the statement read, “We have taken note of the decision of the Supreme Court on the Presidential election held on August 9th, 2022. We have always stood for the rule of law and the constitution. In this regard, we respect the opinion of the court although we vehemently disagree with their decision.
“Our lawyers proffered irrefutable evidence and the facts were on our side, unfortunately, the judges saw it otherwise.”
He equally accused the judges of resorting to using “unduly exaggerated language to refute our claims.”
He further stated his quest is to enthrone transparency and accountability in the country’s democracy and that the judgment will not end the movement but strengthens him and his team to make more effort in that direction.
“This judgment is by no means the end of our movement; in fact, it inspires us to redouble our efforts to transform this country into a prosperous democracy where each and every Kenyan can find their full belonging.”
He thanked all his supporters and the people of Kenyans for standing with him in the struggle, adding that his future plans will be communicated subsequently.
This is the third successive election that the 77-year-old former Prime Minister of the East African country had gone to challenge at the Supreme Court.
