fbpx
Connect with us

Uncategorized

Full Statement By 4 IEBC Commissioners Detailing How Chebukati Cooked Figures In The Final Presidential Results

Published

on

SonkonewsAug 16, 2022Read original

STATEMENT BY THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION

We the undersigned commissioners of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries

Commission (IEBC), took an oath of office to defend the constitution and the law in

discharge of our duties independently. We have remained faithful to our oath of office

and shall continue to do so.

We collectively and unanimously make the following statement pursuant to the media

briefing we held yesterday evening on August 15 2022 at the Serena Hotel Nairobi where

we promised to issue a comprehensive statement with regard to the results of the August

9, 2022 presidential election declared and announced by Mr. Wafula Chebukati in his

capacity as Chairperson.

In the Serena media briefing, we stated that we would NOT take ownership of the results

of the August 15, 2022 presidential election declared and announced by Mr Chebukati.

In this regard, our reasons to decline to take ownership of the results so declared and

announced by Mr. Chebukati are as follows;

  1. THAT the aggregation of the percentages of the results scored by the four

presidential candidates who were on the ballot as declared by Mr. Chebukati

presented to us a mathematical absurdity that defies logic. TAKE NOTICE that Mr.

Chebukati’s aggregation was as follows;

RAILA ODINGA—48.85%

WILLIAM RUTO—50.49%

WAIHIGA MWAURE—0.23%

WAJAKOYA GEORGE—0.44%


TOTAL 100.01%

0.1% translates to approximately 142,000 votes, which would make a significant

difference in the final result.

We therefore declined to take ownership of the said results because the

aggregation resulted in a total exceeding the 100 percentage which cast doubt on

the accuracy of the source of the figures tallied, and when we demanded that we

verify our record, Mr. Chebukati declined, overruled us and insisted on declaring

and announcing the said figures.

  1. THAT contrary to the Constitution and legislation, the results declared and

announced DID NOT indicate the total number of registered voters, the total

number of votes cast or the number of rejected votes, if any. In this regard, the

results announced by Mr. Chebukati lack a critical ingredient namely the total

number of valid votes cast to support the percentages scored by the four

candidates. Unless demonstrated otherwise, we all know that a percentage is

essentially a fraction of a whole number. Hence, if, for example, the 7.176 million

valid votes cast in favour of the winning candidate as declared and announced by

Chebukati translate to 50.49%, then it was 50.49% of what? Further TAKE NOTICE

that Mr. Chebukati claimed that Raila Odinga attained 25% of votes in 34 counties

while William Ruto attained 25% in 39 counties—the question is; which figures in

the 34 and 39 counties respectively constituted the independent variables to

warrant Mr. Chebukati’s conclusion of 25% in 34 counties and 25% in 39 counties

for Raila and Ruto respectively? In the absence of a credible and verifiable

explanation, we concluded that the process that went into the generation of FORM

34C which Chebukati used to declare results of the presidential election was

opaque and incapable of earning our ownership and confidence.

  1. Guided by the authority of the Maina Kiai case (Petition No.106 of 2016 as upheld

by the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No.105 of 2017 and affirmed by the Supreme

Court of Kenya) we state categorically that the results of the presidential election

held on August 9, 2022 declared and announced by Mr Wafula Chebukati on

August 15, 2022 belong to Mr Chebukati himself and do not represent a declaration

and announcement by the Independent Electoral Boundaries Commission. The

Commission has to process the results before they are declared and announced

by the chairperson.

For the avoidance of doubt, let me quote the Maina Kiai Case

“we reiterate, as we conclude that there is no doubt from the architecture of the

laws we have considered that the people of Kenya did not intend to vest or

concentrate such sweeping and boundless powers in one individual , the

chairperson of the appellant”. The emphasis is that

The Commission chairperson has conducted the election as though he is the

National Returning Officer, a non existent role, and his role in declaring results

that were not approved at plenary by all 7 commissioners renders the results

unconstitutional to the extent that this are Chebukati’s results as opposed to those

of the IEBC. In keeping with Article 138(2) of the Constitution, there is no national

presidential election in Kenya but rather the presidential election is held in each

constituency.

  1. THAT contrary to the Constitution and legislation, by the time Mr. Chebukati

declared and announced final results, results from certain constituencies had not

been announced.

DATED AT NAIROBI this 16 DAY OF AUGUST 2022

JULIANA W. CHERERA VICE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER

FRANCIS WANDERI COMMISSIONER

JUSTUS ABONYO COMMISSSIONER

IRENE MASIT COMMISSIONER

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Uncategorized

When President Mnangagwa signed a document purporting to be his mate, see the reality?

Published

on

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Hopewell Chin’ono’s Hypocrisy Exposed by Mr. Tinashe Mpasiri

Published

on

On 24 November 2022, Mr. Hopewell Chin’ono shared this tweet on his wall: https://twitter.com/daddyhope/status/1595758807392534528?s=20&t=YflO7bnB-32EN89x_0fPfQ with the following message directed to nameless and faceless South Africans:

“What we ask from South African citizens is for your President to STOP sanitizing Corrupt Rule in Zimbabwe and to STOP lying that our economy was destroyed by sanctions Listen to our President speak about the LOOTING in 1996.

Why doesn’t your president speak about free elections?”

The above mentioned tweet led to a conversation between Mr. Mpasiri, a member of the Justice Under Rule of Law (JUROL) and Mr. Chin’ono as set out on this link: https://heyzine.com/flip-book/d47b109920.html.

When asked why he had chosen to share a video of 1996 in support of his narrative that President Ramaphosa was guilty of sanitizing the corrupt practices by President Mnangagwa and his administration, Mr. Chin’ono responded as follows:

“ZPF leading Public officials operate with criminal business partners to loot public resources. For all intents and purposes sanctions are not the cause of Zim economic quagmire but ZPF looting public purse thru its puppet business partners from as far back as 1996?”

Advocate Matiza, a member of the Justice Under Rule of Law made the following observations and also a participant in the Banking on Africa’s Future (BOAF) – Legal Literacy WhatsApp group, commended as follows: “It is clear from the above that by importing the video in which Mr. Mawere was featured with Minister Mnangagwa as he was known then, Mr. Chin’ono was openly alleging that Mr. Mawere was Mnangagwa’s then criminal business partner who was his accomplice in looting public resources of Zimbabwe.

However, when exposed by Mr. Mpasiri, a member of JUROL and BOAF, Mr. Chin’ono backtracked as set out below:

TINASHE MPASIRI v HOPEWELL CHIN’ONO
TM: Good morning Mr Chin’ono.
My name is Tinashe Mpasiri and I am a member of the Justice Under Rule Of Law (JUROL).
I am an avid follower of your posts and exposé and certainly wish that there were more
Zimbabweans like you, working towards a diverse, inclusive, progressive and prosperous future
for all.
I just wanted to greet you and share with you a post that was shared in a group I am a part of,
that you may be able to shed more light on it.
https://twitter.com/daddyhope/status/1595758807392534528?s=08
HC: Thank you. I did an interview last night on the issue. Feel free to share it in your group
Find it here;
https://twitter.com/daddyhope/status/1595853417355784192?s=46&t=6iHx7x2V4i8IiLZyIobk_g
TM: Thank you very much sir.
Just for your information, I belong to a group with officials from Wits University and questions
arose yesterday after your sharing of the video.
I have been asked to communicate with you so I get clarity, so we can share with a proper
context.
Your narrative on the tweet is about president Ramaphosa’s failure to act on corruption in
Zimbabwe, but the content of the video, appears nothing to do with the corruption angle.
Kindly assist with the link between the two.
HC: Good morning. Thank you for the question and you can share this audio in your group, you have my permission.
President Ramophosa has been at the forefront of saying incorrectly that the economic crisis in Zimbabwe has been caused by sanctions, which is not true.
The video that you are referencing, is meant to show that the economic crisis in Zimbabwe
started way before sanctions were imposed by western countries.
The economic crisis was authored by looting of public funds by ZANU PF elites and their business surrogates and the plunder of the country’s natural resources.
That video shows president Mnangagwa when he was Finance Minister in 1996, speaking at an event in Washington explaining how public funds have been looted.
So my point is that the president of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa shouldn’t be going around
misleading unsuspecting audiences, by saying that the economic crisis in Zimbabwe is being
caused by sanctions.
So for instance, president Ramaphosa talks about the social services pressures that are exerted by Zimbabweans coming into South Africa to use things like public services like health care. And all hospitals in Zimbabwe, all central hospitals in Zimbabwe, five of them, they only require 50 million to run without any shortages and that will make sure that Zimbabweans don’t have to cross the border into South Africa to seek public services that are provided through hospitals but these hospitals in Zimbabwe don’t have paracetamol.
The biggest hospital in Zimbabwe, Sally Mugabe hospital does not even have paracetamol, it
doesn’t have basic things like bandages and 50 million is only, that’s all we need to run our
central hospitals, but it’s not being availed to these central hospitals.
Now, ZANU PF by its own admission, says that 150 million USD worth of gold is being smuggled by ZANU PF elites and their surrogates every month. Which means what they steal in one month can run our central hospitals for 3 years.
That is the point that I making that president Ramaphosa is misleading unsuspecting audiences by saying that the crisis in Zimbabwe which is over spilling into South Africa, is being caused by sanctions, it’s not true it’s caused by sanctions. It’s caused by mis-governance. Thank you.
TM: Thank you very much Mr. Chin’ono.
This is very helpful and I believe we can build a shared understanding of only when we engage.
I will share your insights in my circles and beyond.
A number of questions emerge from your audio. By surrogates and having had the benefit to watch the video, who would be the surrogates and especially having regard to the fact that Minister Mnangagwa (as he were then), was speaking to a different subject matter involving empowerment and the role of government in financing it.
I could be wrong, but it is self-evident that he was talking about government programs whose
execution resulted in financial support being diverted to personal use.
Your response to the above would greatly assist.
HC: Surrogates were people like Mutumwa Mawere who was his front until they fell out.
Today surrogates refers to people like Kuda Tagwirei who has been a front for State looting
using his myriad of companies.

Here Mr. Chin’ono identifies Mr. Mawere as Mnangagwa’s front until they allegedly fell out.

This narrative is similar to the one peddled by Chin’ono’s friend and President Mnangagwa’s confidante and lawyer, Mr. Edwin Manikai as follows:

The message above was authored by Mr. Manikai on 27 March 2021 and was addressed to Mr. Fred Mutanda. The version peddled by Mr. Chin’ono is the same as Manikai’s version.
Mr. Manikai in the middle with Mr. Hopewell Chin’ono
Mr. Manikai in the picture with the visiting American delegation of Senators to Zimbabwe and his wife and Hon. Mliswa, Manikai’s best friend.
The SMM heist gang who authored and executed the divestment and deprivation of the control of 26 companies employing 20,000 people in 2004 using public power described as the precursor to the coup of November 2017 that was orchestrated by the same gang against Mugabe after successfully prosecuting the coup against SMM and related entities.

TM: Thank you for the honest response and obviously when I watched the video, I could not make the link between Mutumwa Mawere and the looting.
Perhaps you can share evidence supporting the allegation of surrogacy and the corruption
therefore in, so that I can afford both president Mnangagwa and Mawere to give their own
account of the precise nature of the alleged link between public power and private benefit.
Unfortunately, the video’s content does not establish the causal link which is vital in determining any dispute in an Independent and impartial manner.
HC: I didn’t say Mutumwa was corrupt.
I said that there were public funds that were doled out which amounted to looting.
You are misinterpreting what I said.
The video has nothing to do with Mutumwa being corrupt, it was meant to illustrate how public funds were looted way before sanctions.

Hopewell denies what he said before and claims the video that he intentionally and constructively shared to demonstrate the origins of Mnangagwa’s corruption had nothing to with Mawere being party to the looting of public funds.

TM: Thank you for clarifying and I am intrigued by your response.
You have asserted as true and fact that Mawere was Mnangagwa front and this aspect is not
evident in the video, suggesting that evidence exists that the alleged fronting you are talking
about, is supported by concrete evidence which is required in any bona fide process, seeking to hold people accountable for their conduct or misconduct. I would be grateful if you can identify in precise terms what Mawere front for Mnangagwa.

Mr. Chin’ono on SABC repeating the narrative of corruption as the cause of the Zim crisis.

Advocate Jack Matiza who was incensed by Mr. Chin’ono’s utterances remarked asked: “How can he be held responsible and accountable for social media post that damage another person reputation? My take is Hopewell is also guilty of selective amnesia he is accusing Ramaphosa of when it comes to sanctions, by stating that Mutumwa Mawere was an front of ED without providing any proof to that. Our self acclaimed award winning journalist and human right defender…ought to know that he who alleges must prove, is he not using or abusing social media or public media platforms to make unfounded statements without allowing the accused an opportunity to air their side of the story is itself an abuse of that person’s basic human rights?
To which Mr. Mawere responded as follows: “What if there exists no shared understanding on what are the obligations and rights of citizenship? What Hopewell could be saying is that information that he may possess is true and fact unless proved otherwise because he holds a privileged position in society as a journalist. In this case, affinity politics would compel him to conclude that because I shared the same platform with the current President of Zimbabwe this reality confirms a generally corrupt relationship. You can imagine what the true import of state capture and the legal consequences arising for its existence.”
Advocate Matiza by stating as follows: “There is certainly need to actively contribute to development of such shared understanding and common standards.”
Mr. Mawere commended as follows: “If asked to explain why the conversation is intriguing, what would be your response?

Mr Chin’ono genuinely believes that CORRUPTION is the elephant in the room.

He hold the view that he occupies a special and exceptional position in relation to the affairs of Zimbabwe.

He has a view on the 1996 video.”

When asked by Mr. Mawere, what identified questions arise from the hypocrisy inherent in Mr. Chin’ono’s open attack against Mawere and when confronted by Mr. Manikai, he quickly denied what he had stated as true and fact, Advocate Matiza responded as follows:

1. Abuse of the profession of journalism by an acclaimed journalist who has no respect for the truth in his narratives.

2.How should one define a human rights defender especially having exposed Mr. Chin’ono’s embarrassing performance by first alleging that Mnangagwa was using Mawere as a front only to backtrack and deny his own bold assertions.


3.In the face of hypocrites masquerading as award-winning journalists, what should be the best response to deal with divisive characters who have captured the profession and are using it as a weapon to advance their ulterior motives?

4. Section 2 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe imposes a binding obligation on every person to ensure that the rule of law is promoted, protected and upheld and in this case, what should be done by ordinary citizens to ensure that people like Mr. Chin’ono are accountable for their conduct which is inimical to the rule of law?

5. Does a person like Mr. Chin’ono know that he is also subject to the constitution and possesses no title or authority to maliciously defame other people. How best can he be held accountable for his reckless and dangerous assertions he makes under the cover that he is a journalist par excellence?

6. Does his conduct based on Mpasiri’s excellent interrogation not fall within conduct that is inconsistent with the constitution of Zimbabwe?

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Please take notice of this announcement by ZIMRA

Published

on

Continue Reading

Trending