The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) on Thursday denied cases of server invasion by unapproved individual to work with variety of political race results on electronically-sent outcome structures.
Answering cases that structures sent as JPEG were altered and transferred on the commission’s public entrance as PDF records subsequent to being doctored, legal counselor Mahat Somane said the contention by the lead candidate — Raila Odinga — was misdirecting.
He said the Kenya Integrated Election Management System (KIEMS) packs conveyed to more than 46,000 surveying stations had an installed imaging programming that naturally changed pictures of structures taken into PDF before transmission to the focal server.
“The unit takes a picture, imbedded in it (the pack) is a scanner so the picture is checked as a PDF. We have no other result,” Somane told the 7-judge board of the Supreme Court drove by Chief Justice Martha Koome, the court’s leader.
He lauded the security of KIEMS foundation portraying it as military-grade saying it was intended to work on a blockchain framework making it impervious.
“The pack really tells the Presiding Officer to retake the picture on the off chance that it isn’t clear, he then, at that point, presses send and even without network the picture can’t be reviewed. The (lined) structure then raises a ruckus around town at whatever point the unit acquires network,” Somane said.
“Our framework is so great since it depends on blockchain and it gives assets as required in light of the quantity of individuals getting to the gateway,” he added.
Somane told the court the server was likewise outfitted with a check component that guaranteed the chronic quantities of structures from explicit surveying stations are legitimate before they are conceded into the entrance.
“Those structures answer some locale inquiries before they are conceded into the entrance. The gateway confirms the surveying station code as well as the chronic number of the unit conveyed to the particular surveying station,” Somane explained.
He excused structures given by the candidates as doctored and “falsifications and awful fabrications at that.”
IEBC noticed that structures conceded into the entrance were doled out two security includes in particular: a date and a period stamp.
The appointive commission additionally tested an affirmation by candidates challenging the result of the August 9 official political decision on grounds that the outcome was not approved by the entire.
Prof Githu Muigai, previous Attorney General, who drove IEBC lawful group in making oral accommodation under the steady gaze of the Supreme Court guarded the commission Chairperson Wafula Chebukati from cases of running an exclusive show and side-covering four chiefs.
“The idea that we ought to have a whole discussion about the outcome is what that would make enormous consequences this country,” Senior Counsel Kamau Karori told the court.
“What might occur assuming that after the decisions are directed and finished, chiefs for reasons unknown take various positions and conclude that they’re not settled on the statement to be made and that a statement can’t be made until they’re completely concurred?” he presented.
Karori likewise tested the idea that the suggested significance of IEBC, in running a political decision, as an establishment is the 7-part entire comprising the Chairperson and six different magistrates, barring secretariat staff.
He avowed that Article 138 (10) was explicit on who exposed the job of pronouncing the official political decision result and that in doing as such, the Chairperson would work with staff of the commission and not chiefs solely.
“Assuming that was expected by the Constitution, nothing would have been more straightforward for Article 138 (10) to have made reference to individuals from the Commission,” Karori expressed.
Article 138 (10) required that: “In something like seven days after the official political race, the executive of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission will (a) pronounce the consequence of the political race; and (b) convey a composed warning of the outcome to the Chief Justice and the occupant President.”
Karori proceeded to say that had the law expected the statement to be supported by an entire goal, Article 138 (10) would have been sure about the equivalent.
“It is purposeful that it just expected the Chairperson to proclaim the outcomes and in my unassuming accommodation, is that the assurance planned by Article 138 (10) worked in these conditions,” Karori expressed.
“We got a statement made in light of the fact that it is the commitment of the Chairperson to make the statement and anyone miserable the choice accessible is for them to come the court. It can’t be that various officials can choose to leave so a statement doesn’t occur,” he told the court.