Here is the formula that altered votes – Raila’s lawyer
Nasa presidential candidate Raila Odinga has questioned the way the electoral commission conducted the August 8 election, saying that it was outside the law and therefore should be nullified.
Mr Odinga told the court at the start of the hearing of the presidential petition that the integrity of the election was questionable because Mr Kenyatta had consistently maintained an 11 per cent lead from the start to the end of the transmission of presidential results.
This, the lawyers said, was a statistically impossible.
11 PER CENT GAP
“The presidential results showed a curious trend in which Mr Kenyatta maintained a consistent 11 per cent difference at each and every stage. If as required by law these results were being streamed randomly, then this was not possible,” Mr Odinga lawyer Otiende Amollo told the court.
The lawyer said the upshot of this observation is that the results were coming in throughout but in batches, which means that they were not coming from polling stations as required by law.
Mr Amollo told the seven-member Supreme Court bench that the fact that the results were coming in batches made it impossible for experts to explain where they were coming from, suggesting that they could have been held somewhere before being released.
“It is possible the results were being held somewhere, adjusted and then released into the commission’s system,” Mr Amollo submitted.
ERROR ADJUSTMENT FORMULA
He said the results were adjusted through a formula he described as error adjustment formula that when used gives a clear line of all the variables, which he said was another statistical impossibility.
“Under the formula all one needs was to know the votes Mr Odinga would garner at any particular time and then you can determine Mr Kenyatta’s votes.
He gave the formula of achieving the results as y=1.2045x+183546.
Mr Amolloe further said an analysis of the results by Nasa had revealed 32 fundamental breaches which he said are serious enough to invalidate the re-election of President Kenyatta.
He said the analysis of forms 34A submitted to Mr Odinga by the commission are of “dubious authenticity” as they did not bear the commission’s stamp, and that some of them had been tampered with by the commission in the wake of filing of the presidential petition by Mr Odinga.
“Some of the forms are totally different even through visual layout, which suggests that they may not have been printed collectively by Al Ghurair under its printing contractual agreement with the commission,” he said.