Sign in
Download Opera News App

News Politics




Asian politics

Azimio-OKA Alleges What Supreme Court Should Have Done To The Presidential Petition

Azimio claims that the Supreme Court has failed to uphold the rule of law as the last judge in presidential petitions. The Supreme Court, the paper claims, showed prejudice favouring Azimio in its decision.

According to the research, Kenyans should assess whether or not the Supreme Court is successfully carrying out its mandate. Accusing the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) of crimes perpetrated in favour of Ruto, Azimio claimed that the elections should have been nullified.

In the letter, they claimed that the language used to describe them was inappropriate for a fair judge to employ in a court of law based on the principle of adversarialism. Report terms such as "wild goose chase," "red herring," "worthless pursuit," and "sensational" will "remain as painful, festering wounds in the hearts of many Azimio supporters and shall be a pillory to which the reputation of the Supreme Court shall be held to public ridicule for generations to come.

In regards to the consolidated petitions, the Azimio administration said the judges acted more like litigants than impartial arbiters and used language consistent with an adversary.


Content created and supplied by: _trending_ (via Opera News )

Azimio Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Kenyans Supreme Court


Load app to read more comments