This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/world/africa/raila-odinga-kenya-election.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Raila Odinga Says He Won’t Run in Kenya’s New Presidential Election Kenya Opposition Leader Demanded a New Vote. Now, He’s Left the Race.
(about 7 hours later)
NAIROBI, Kenya — Raila Odinga, the Kenyan opposition leader, said on Tuesday that he would not run in a new presidential election to be held in two weeks, a move that almost guarantees that President Uhuru Kenyatta will remain in office. NAIROBI, Kenya — When Kenya’s Supreme Court nullifed the results of the recent presidential election, saying it had been tainted by irregularities, euphoria that the judiciary was independent enough to stand up for a fair vote swept the country.
The first election, on Aug. 8, was initially praised as a success, but it was nullified three weeks later by the Supreme Court, which ordered a new vote after determining that the first ballot had been tainted by fraud and irregularities. But on Tuesday, after more than a month of political wrangling, Raila Odinga, the opposition leader who had objected to the results of the initial vote back in August, announced that he would not participate in the new one set by the court.
Mr. Kenyatta was re-elected with 54 percent of the vote, but his main challenger, Mr. Odinga, had petitioned the court to cancel the results, saying that the election had been electronically manipulated to guarantee a victory for the incumbent. “All indications are that the election scheduled for October 26 will be worse than the previous one,” Mr. Odinga said at a news conference, because the electoral commission did not intend “to undertake any changes to its operations and personnel” to ensure a free and credible election.
David Maraga, the Supreme Court’s chief justice, declared on Sept. 1 in ruling in favor of the opposition that the initial result was “invalid, null and void,” although the court did not accept the claim that the election had been rigged. Mr. Odinga’s announcement is now raising questions about whether the historic election ruling, the first time an African court invalidated the election of an incumbent, will bring lasting change.
In announcing his decision to withdraw from the new election, scheduled for Oct. 26, Mr. Odinga said that the election commission had failed to make the changes necessary to avoid the problems that plagued the vote in August. “The Supreme Court decision in September was unpredictable and it is still unpredictable what it will lead to this time,” Justin Willis, professor of modern African history at Durham University in Britain said.
Mr. Odinga said that the commission had “stonewalled” changes sought by the opposition, The Associated Press reported, and he accused officials of engaging in little more than “public relations exercises” that amounted to “motion without movement.” With Mr. Odinga’s withdrawal, the judiciary will decide once again what happens next. The court could allow just one candidate, the incumbent, President Uhuru Kenyatta, to run on his own, handing him an absolute victory. Or it could open the vote to weaker candidates who had initially run, also likely resulting in a victory for the president.
The election this year was significant on two fronts: The court’s decision to order a new presidential vote represented a first in Africa, and the initial election passed without the wide-scale violence that marred elections in 2007 and 2013. Or the judges could call for a new election within 60 days, under a ruling allowing a new vote if a contender dies. That could help Mr. Odinga and his party, said Nic Cheeseman, a professor and expert on African democracy at Birmingham University in Britain.
In ordering a new election, the Supreme Court said that the first attempt may have been hacked and that the election commission had failed to verify the results. “That way, they get another 60 days to build up their steam,” he explained. “They get more campaign financing and proper electoral reforms are made.”
“Elections are not only about numbers,” Philomena Mwilu, the deputy chief justice, said last month. “Elections should be like a math test where you only get points for the answer if you show your workings.” For the election to take place, Mr. Cheeseman added, “critical compromise” was needed.
“We simply haven’t seen genuine progress on negotiations on how to go forward,” he said.
The electoral commission had declared Mr. Kenyatta the winner of the Aug. 8 vote, with 54 percent of the ballots, to 44 percent for Mr. Odinga — a margin of about 1.4 million votes. But Mr. Odinga, 72, petitioned the Supreme Court to annul what he called a “massive fraud.”
To everyone’s surprise, the court handed him a victory.
Analysts have suggested that Mr. Odinga, who is running low on campaign money, is withdrawing from the race for tactical reasons. They speculate that he may not have enough support to win the vote under current conditions and is bowing out to save face.
That may allow him to maintain his legacy as a veteran fighter for democratic reforms and for having instigated the Supreme Court’s historic ruling.
When announcing his withdrawal from the race, Mr. Odinga said it was best for him to pull out, “considering the interests of the people of Kenya, the region and the world at large.”
In its ruling, the court singled out the election board for mishandling the original vote. But the same officials are expected to oversee the new vote — an arrangement that Mr. Odinga strongly opposes. Before withdrawing from the race on Tuesday, he repeatedly threatened to boycott the vote if they were not replaced and prosecuted.
Meanwhile, President Kenyatta has called the Supreme Court judges themselves “thugs” and vowed to “fix” the judiciary. His Jubilee Party recently introduced amendments to electoral laws that have been widely criticized as efforts to clip the judiciary’s wings.
One amendment would ban the Supreme Court from nullifying a presidential election unless violations of the constitution or electoral law significantly alter the outcome.
During a campaign tour on Monday, Mr. Kenyatta said his rival was free to withdraw from the race “if he’s not interested.” Kenyans “are tired,” Mr. Kenyatta said. “If he does not want elections he should keep off and let the country move forward.”
Mr. Kenyatta responded to Mr. Odinga’s Tuesday announcement by saying that his opponent had exercised his “democratic right” to pull out of the race. But he also described his rival’s withdrawal as “injustice,” saying billions of dollars had already been spent to prepare for the repeat election. “That money would have been used to build roads,” he said.
Patrick Gathara, a Kenyan commentator and a political cartoonist based in Nairobi, called the new developments “the best moment for Kenya’s civic education.”
“People are talking and quoting the constitution in bars, people are paying attention,” he said, adding, “ We’re talking about a crisis but we’re clarifying the rules and the laws — we’re going into places that make us uncomfortable.”
Still, the uncertainty surrounding the election is increasing frustration among ordinary citizens and is even affecting the economy, with far fewer tourists and business deals being made.
“People are getting fed up of politics,” said Wilson Riungu, a cabdriver in Nairobi. “The economy is getting worse day by day. It’s always politics, politics, politics.” He voted for Mr. Kenyatta in the August vote, but now is now unsure if he will even go to the polls on Election Day, let alone whom he would cast his ballot for.
Western diplomats, who had praised the initial vote in August have now condemned Kenya’s political leaders for preventing a smooth and peaceful vote.
“If the upcoming election devolves into chaos, the economy, businesses, jobholders and families – all Kenyans — will pay a heavy price,” read a statement from a group of diplomats representing the United States, Britain, and the European Union.
The statement criticized Mr. Kenyatta’s proposed amendments but also Mr. Odinga for his demands, saying they undermined the electoral body’s mandate to hold the new vote.