As National Super Alliance presidential candidate Raila Odinga's legal team started arguing their case in presidential petition on Monday morning, his lawyers questioned the way the IEBC conducted the August 8th election, arguing it was outside the law and therefore should be nullified.
Odinga poked holes on the integrity of the election, saying that Uhuru Kenyatta consistently maintained an 11 per cent lead from the start to the end of the transmission of presidential results, raising alot of questions, with the lawyers arguing it was a statistically impossible.
“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,”Odinga lawyer Otiende Amollo told the court.
Amollo presented that the fact that results were coming in batches made it impossible for IEBC to explain where the results were obtained from.
“It is possible the results were being held somewhere, adjusted and then released into the commission’s system,” Amollo submitted.
The lawyer further argued that results by IEBC were adjusted using a mathematical formula he described as error adjustment formula that controlled 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 said formula y=1.2045x+183546 was used to manipulate the results.
Amolloe further pointed out that an analysis of the results by Nasa revealed 32 fundamental breaches which were grave enough to overturn the re-election of President Kenyatta.
He said a scrutiny of forms 34A submitted to Mr Odinga by the commission are of “dubious authenticity” as they lacked the commission’s stamp, while some of them had been tampered with by the commission on the eve of filing of the presidential petition by 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.