How lawyer Ahmednasir dismantled petitions with single argument

Proposal for donor funding

ahmednasir abdullahi
Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi. PHOTO: COURTESY

If you did not vote in the October 26 election, then you have no business challenging the validity of the repeat presidential election ordered by the Supreme Court, President Uhuru Kenyatta has said through his lawyers.

Lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi told the court in the ongoing petition challenging his client Mr Kenyatta’s victory, that petitioners did not vote in the just concluded poll.

ahmednasir abdullahi_fred ngatia
Solicitor General Njee Muturi with President Uhuru Kenyatta lawyers Ahmednasir Abdullahi and Fred Ngatia after the status conference of the presidential election petition at the Supreme Court in Nairobi, November 14, 2017. PHOTO: JACK OWUOR/THE STAR

The cases before Chief Justice David Maraga and his five juniors are courtesy of activists Njonjo Mue of ICJ and MUHURI’s Khelef Khalifa and another one by former Kilome Member of Parliament Harun Mwau.

READ:  Wetangula asks Luhyas to ignore Atwoli after he endorsed Mudavadi

“A person who can challenge an election is a person, not just a registered voter, but a person who exercised that right (to vote).” Ahmednasir who also goes by the moniker Grand Mullah said on Thursday, November 16.

He directed the bench to article 140 and noted that not just anyone can challenge the validity of an election.

“If you don’t deconstruct that article, you will be allowing anyone to pursue an election petition as a game of chance,” he said.

The renown lawyer told the Supreme Court it is wasting its time listening to the petitioners as their concerns are not based on public interest and should be discarded.

READ:  Raila Odinga mourns friend Morgan Tsvangirai

“This petition is a waste of time. They did not exercise their civic rights. The last petition is nothing more but a fascination of lay men. It has nothing to do with public interest…it is a proposal for donor funding,” he said.

“Do you have evidence that they did not vote?” Justice David Maraga asked the Senior Counsel.

To which Ahmednasir said the petitioners had not written anywhere in their affidavit that they had.

“In the affidavit, they say they are registered but there is no place where they say they voted…the petitioners say there were no election,” he noted. “From the pleadings, it is clear they did not participate in the October election.”

READ:  Why we stopped Orengo, Wanjigi from travelling - Immigration

Justice Njoki Ndung’u interjected at this point and asked the advocate to explain the right to vote and the right not to vote. “Does it mean I cannot come to court if have not voted?” she wondered.

“There is no right of ‘not to vote’. It is a decision not to vote,” he said. “The entire petition is premised on there being no election.” He said.