The sports category has moved to a new website.

Martha Karua speaks after Supreme Court upholds Ruto's win

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the petition filed by Odinga and Karua

Senior Counsel Martha Karua

Azimio la Umoja presidential running mate Martha Karua has spoken after the Supreme Court delivered its judgement on the election petition filed by Raila Odinga.

In a post on her social media, Karua said she had accepted the outcome of the petition despite not being in favour of the Azimio la Umoja One Kenya alliance.

"The court has spoken. I respect but disagree with the findings," Karua said.


The Azimio coalition lead lawyer, Senior Counsel James Orengo also disagreed with the outcome of the petition but admitted that the Supreme Court had the last word.

The Supreme Court of Kenya has announced that the 2022 presidential election results declared by IEBC Chairperson Wafula Chebukati have been upheld.

Chebukati had declared Ruto as president-elect after garnering 7,176,141 votes (50.49%) against Azimio la Umoja presidential candidate Raila Odinga's 6,942,930 (48.85%)votes.

Speaking while delivering the judgement, Chief Justice Martha Koome said that the full judgment would be shared after 21 days.


The Supreme Court said that in the 2022 presidential election petition, the court had nine issues to determine whether the presidential election results would be upheld or nullified and what orders will be issued.

Chief Justice Martha Koome who is the president of the Supreme Court explained that the judges looked at the nine issues listed.

She said that one of the issues was whether the technology used by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission met the standards of integrity to guarantee accurate and verified results.

Supreme Court's verdict: Supreme Court is not persuaded that the IEBC technology did not meet the standards for ensuring the accurate and verifiable outcome of the August 9 poll. The petitioners did not demonstrate security breaches on the IEBC results transmission system.


The Supreme Court also had to determine whether there was interference in the uploading of Forms 34A from the polling station into IEBC’s server.

Supreme Court's verdict: The petitioners did not prove that there was interference in the uploading of Forms 34A from the polling station into IEBC’s server. No evidence produced to show the transmission process was staged.


The Supreme Court determined whether the postponement of elections in Kakamega, Mombasa Counties, Kitui Rural, Kacheliba, Pokot South, Rongai constituencies, Kwa Njenga Ward and Nyaki West wards resulted in voter suppression to the detriment of Raila Odinga.

Supreme Court's verdict: Chebukati had the right to postpone the elections in other parts of the country after ballot mixup. No prove that postponment resulted in vote suppression to the detriment of Odinga.

Additionally, the judges were supposed to ruled whether there was a difference between Forms 34A uploaded into the IEBC portal, those delivered physically to the Bomas of Kenya National tallying Centre and those issued to presiding officers at the various polling stations.

Supreme Court's verdict: There was no significant difference between Forms 34A uploaded into the IEBC portal, those delivered physically to the Bomas of Kenya National tallying Centre.


The Supreme Court also looked at whether there was an unexplained difference between the votes cast in the presidential election and other elections.

Supreme Court's verdict: No unexplainable discrepancies between votes for the presidential candidates and those of other candidates.


The petitioners argued that IEBC chair Wafula Chebukati errored in not involving other commissioners in the tallying, verification of the presidential election.

Supreme Court's verdict: The chairman cannot arrogate himself powers to tally the results at the exclusion of other commissioners.

However, the court observed that the 4 commissioners participated in the tallying, verification of the results from the beginning up to the end, before the declaration of the results by the chairperson.

IEBC carried out the tallying, verification and declaration of the results in accordance with the constitution.

Are we to nullify an election on account of a last-minute boardroom rupture? This we cannot do,” CJ Koome asked.


The supreme court was supposed to determine whether William Ruto met the constitutional threshold to be declared president-elect.

Supreme Court's verdict: Rejected votes should not be included in calculating whether a presidential candidate meets the 50%+1 vote threshold. Ruto met the required threshold to be declared the president-elect.

The judges also determined whether there were irregularities and illegalities in the electoral process and if they were of such a magnitude as to affect the presidential election result.


Supreme Court's verdict: There were no irregularities and illegalities of such magnitude as to affect the final result of the presidential election.


Unblock notifications in browser settings.

Eyewitness? Submit your stories now via social or: