 |
| Embu Governor, Martin Wambora seemingly reassures the county first lady during an Appeal Court hearing at the Supreme Court in Nairobi on 3 July, 2018. PHOTO|COURTESY |
The morning of Tuesday 3 July 2018 was not only chilly whether-wise but emotionally too, mostly for the few fellows who accompanied former Embu senator to the Court of Appeals hearing at the Supreme Court in Nairobi. As for the multitude that was present to offer moral support to Governor Wambora, the attitude was different. The latter team was full of gusto, having confidence in the the competence of the incumbent's counsel to not only get Justice but also to deliver victory for Embu people.
Well, tension was rampant at the Supreme court as the bench of Court of Appeal judges listened to submissions pertaining to Governor Wambora's appeal on a fallacious ruling earlier delivered by the High Court in Embu several months ago.
 |
| Some of the moral supporters who accompanied Governor Wambora to the Supreme Court in Nairobi |
It was satirical for every enlightened person present to hear the petitioner's lead counsel, prof. Ojieda attempt to introduce new evidence on election malpractice. It was indeed an awkward moment as the battery of lawyers went on a course to justify against themselves that the High court judge sitting in Embu had acted on 'lack of proper judicial knowledge' to nullify the 2017 Embu gubernatorial election results.
Judge Musinga put an uphill task on Prof. Ojienda's shoulders, asking him to name the 121 polling stations that his client, Mr. Lenny Kivuti claimed to have had irregularities.
In a show of proper understanding of law, Wambora's legal team led by the Grand Mullah, put it out that Judge Musyoka, sitting at the High Court in Embu had made his ruling without considering or bothering to know the names of the alleged stations. It was noted that the stations were neither known nor had they been presented before Court before.
Renowned lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi communicated to Prof. Ojieda, to his face, that the latter had no knowhow of the exact location of the said polling stations.
Accordingly, the conclusion was that:
1. There was no evidential basis for scrutiny of votes cast
2. There were no specific disputes
3. All of it was a fishy expedition of bloated ego
4. The High Court judge over emphasized on the margin, and that
5. When the judge found the appellate to still be the winner, he came with plan B, culminating to point 3 above.
At the end of it all, the court set the date of the ruling for 17 August 2018.
