President-elect William Ruto has suffered a blow after the Supreme Court declined his application challenging the use of an affidavit filed by Anti-corruption crusader John Githongo.
In his petition, the outgoing DP wanted the affidavits struck off on grounds that they contain hearsay, therefore impermissible.
The Supreme court judges led by Chief Justice Martha Koome, however, threw out his petition stating that striking out the affidavits will be premature.
Also Read:
"It is only proper that the Court be allowed to consider the totality of the evidence before it and as guided by the rules of evidence be able to discern the probative value and evidentiary threshold of each of the evidence adduced by each party,
"Striking out of the affidavits at this early juncture in isolation while leaving the responses on record, in our view, is premature under the circumstances," the court ruled.
In a detailed affidavit, Githongo had claimed that Ruto's digital strategist Dennis Itumbi was part of the 56 individuals who allegedly infiltrated the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission’s (IEBC) systems.
He also stated that the team had 10 supervisors who guided and directed the other 46 individuals recruited to access and manipulate forms 34As.
On his part, Itumbi dismissed the allegations describing Githongo’s claims as a mere fabrication full of imagination to discredit the final presidential results.
"Githongo’s narration and whistleblower account is a fantasy and fictional story with shadowy imagined characters and locations,
“In paragraph nine of his affidavit, Githongo provides a hearsay account of a supposed team of 56 people based in Karen with 10 supervisors who could access, enter and manipulate IEBC entries,” Itumbi stated.
The Supreme Court however opined that the said affidavits contain factual contestations.
"We opine that the said affidavits reveal that they contain factual contestations which have been responded to substantively by the 1st respondent and by the applicant including through the affidavits of Martin Wachira Nyaga (on behalf of the 1st respondent) and by Dennis Itumbi who has been directly implicated and Davis Kimutai Chirchir on behalf of the applicant," the judges ruled.
