LEFT: President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto address at Karatina town in Nyeri county. RIGHT: Nasa presidential candidate Raila Odinga and his running mate Kalonzo Musyoka at Nakeel grounds in Rongai, Kajiado. PHOTOS | JOSEPH KANYI and DENNIS KAVISULEFT: President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto address at Karatina town in Nyeri county. RIGHT: Nasa presidential candidate Raila Odinga and his running mate Kalonzo Musyoka at Nakeel grounds in Rongai, Kajiado. PHOTOS | JOSEPH KANYI and DENNIS KAVISU
By SAM KIPLAGAT

A blogger has moved to court seeking to stop the October 26 presidential poll.

Abraham Mutai, a voter in Narok South, moved to the Court of Appeal under certificate of urgency, arguing that the withdrawal of Nasa from the poll automatically triggered the cancellation of the election.

The blogger says IEBC and its chairman Wafula Chebukati are under an obligation to initiate a fresh election preceded with nominations and gazettement of nominated candidates under Article 138 of The Constitution and Section 14 of the Elections Act

The IEBC chairman has already indicated that all candidates who participated in the annulled August 8 poll, are eligible.

But through lawyer Nelson Havi, Mr Mutai wants the court to first stop IEBC from gazetting the new presidential list and hear the case urgently.

RAILA’S WITHDRAWAL

Mr Mutai argued that the October 26 poll is deemed to have been cancelled following the withdrawal of Nasa candidate Raila Odinga and his running mate Kalonzo Musyoka.

He has faulted Justice John Mativo’s decision by declaring that the 2013 judgement on the presidential petition was not binding. According to him, the Judge solely relied on foreign decisions, to arrive at his decision.

In directing IEBC to included Dr Aukot in the ballot, Justice Mativo said it would serve public interest if all those who participated in the invalidated election qualify to contest in the fresh election.

“Restrictions upon participating the electoral process can only be justified through very strong reasons and in a way that the core of the basic feature – is not damaged”.

ELECTORAL LAWS

Mutai said complying with the decision amounts to a contravention of Section 14 (1) (b) of the Elections Act, No. 24 of 2011, because the names of the candidates would be gazetted out of time.

“The Learned Judge of the High Court erred in law, in holding that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the meaning of “fresh election” under Article 140 (3) of The Constitution was not binding upon him and was a mere ad hoc observation,” he said.

He has also faulted the Judge saying he erred in law, by departing from the decision of the Supreme Court and defining what fresh election means.

He also complains that the Commission is keen on going on with the election despite the fact that Parliament has “unilaterally undertaken massive amendments in the electoral laws”, whose effect is to defect a free and fair election.

The Bills were accented into law by President Uhuru Kenyatta on Friday.