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.
Kenyan Court Upholds Election of Candidate Facing Charges in The Hague
(about 4 hours later)
NAIROBI, Kenya — Kenya’s Supreme Court on Saturday unanimously upheld the election victory of Uhuru Kenyatta as the country’s president, dismissing allegations that the election had been rigged.
NAIROBI, Kenya — Kenya’s Supreme Court on Saturday unanimously upheld the election victory of Uhuru Kenyatta as the country’s president, dismissing allegations that the vote had been rigged.
The decision eliminated the last hurdle for Mr. Kenyatta to take office, but it could leave Western nations with a serious headache. He has been charged by the International Criminal Court with crimes against humanity, accused of using his vast family fortune to bankroll death squads during the chaos that erupted after Kenya’s last election in 2007.
But almost immediately, protests erupted in some opposition strongholds, with stone-throwing mobs squaring off against Kalashnikov-toting police officers. And Mr. Kenyatta’s legal battles are hardly over.
American officials have already voiced discomfort about working with Mr. Kenyatta, though most analysts say Kenya has become such a strategic ally in Africa that the United States has little choice.
As Kenya’s next president, Mr. Kenyatta will soon be summoned to the International Criminal Court in The Hague to stand trial on charges of crimes against humanity, accused of using his vast family fortune to bankroll death squads during the chaos that exploded after Kenya’s last disputed election in 2007. He says that he is innocent and that the charges are based on gossip. But many Western officials believe otherwise, and already the Obama administration has gotten off on the wrong foot, sending the signal that it hoped Mr. Kenyatta would lose.
In front of a hushed courtroom, Chief Justice Willy Mutunga read out the decision on Saturday, saying that the election had been conducted “in compliance with the Constitution and the law” and that it was now up to the Kenyan people to “ensure that the unity, peace, sovereignty and prosperity of the nation is preserved.”
The United States now may have little choice but to work with Mr. Kenyatta because Kenya is one of its closest allies in Africa, serving as a base for everything from running billion-dollar health programs to spying on agents of Al Qaeda. When it comes down to it, several analysts have said, the United States actually needs Kenya more than Kenya needs the United States.
Mr. Kenyatta, the son of Kenya’s first president and one of the richest men in this part of Africa (and also an Amherst graduate), was elected this month, but the second-place finisher, Raila Odinga, Kenya’s prime minister, cried foul and filed a complaint to the Supreme Court claiming numerous irregularities. The dispute has kept Kenya on edge, because the 2007 election, in which Mr. Odinga also lost, set off ethnic clashes that left more than 1,000 dead and brought Kenya’s economy to its knees.
On Saturday afternoon, in front of a hushed courtroom, Kenya’s chief justice, Willy Mutunga, read out the verdict upholding Mr. Kenyatta’s victory, saying that the election, held nearly four weeks ago, had been conducted “in compliance with the Constitution and the law.”
The question now is: What will be the reaction? Mr. Odinga was scheduled to hold a news conference on Saturday evening, and his followers seemed to be waiting for his cue.
The second-place finisher, Prime Minister Raila Odinga, seemed to finally swallow his defeat. Mr. Odinga had accused Kenya’s election commission of conspiring with Mr. Kenyatta to steal the vote. In the past week, in heated hearings in front of the Supreme Court, Mr. Odinga’s lawyers presented evidence of questionable vote tallying.
In Kisumu, Mr. Odinga’s ethnic stronghold, where more than 95 percent of the people voted for him, the streets were quiet but tense.
The Supreme Court itself concluded that there had been dozens of errors, though it appears the justices did not feel those errors would have changed the outcome — or they were wary of dragging out what had already become a long and tortuous election period.
“There is no violence yet,” said Kennedy Odede, a community activist. But, he added, “there are police everywhere.”
On Saturday evening, in a room full of his supporters, Mr. Odinga mopped his face with a handkerchief and said, somewhat mournfully, “The court has now spoken.”
In downtown Nairobi, some of Mr. Odinga’s supporters smashed shop windows and were chased away by heavily armed police officers.
He said he would abide by its decision, and he wished Mr. Kenyatta well.
Mr. Kenyatta has denied the International Criminal Court’s charges against him, saying they were based on gossip. His running mate, William Ruto, who is soon to be sworn in as Kenya’s deputy president, has also been charged by the court with crimes against humanity, accused of organizing young men to kill villagers during the last election.
A few hours later, Mr. Kenyatta spoke to the nation, saying, “I urge you to accept the election is over.” And he called for Kenyans to come together “above the partisanship.”
The Supreme Court verdict caps weeks, if not months, of distraction, anxiety, hope and dread across Kenya. The horrific memories from 2007 and early 2008 have been fresh in the minds of many Kenyans, like little shards of glass, painfully embedded just below the surface. Many Kenyans have feared that another disputed, ethnically tinged election could detonate the same type of grievances and violence unleashed last time.
Mr. Kenyatta, a son of Kenya’s first president and one of the country’s richest men, is expected to be sworn in on April 9. His running mate, William Ruto, soon to be deputy president, has also been charged by the International Criminal Court with crimes against humanity, accused of organizing young men to kill villagers during the last election.
In Kenya, many people identify very strongly with their ethnic groups — speaking their “mother tongues,” keeping second homes in their ethnic heartlands and marrying within the so-called tribes. When it comes to elections, many Kenyans vote along ethnic lines. This often leads to a sharp rise in ethnic tensions around election time.
The long-awaited verdict caps weeks, if not months, of distraction, anxiety, hope and dread. In 2007 and early 2008, Kenya cracked open in riots and clashes after Mr. Odinga lost the presidential race amid evidence of vote rigging, leaving more than 1,000 dead. The horrific memories from that time have been fresh in the minds of many Kenyans, like little shards of glass painfully embedded just below the surface. Many have feared that another contested election could set off the same type of violence.
On March 4, Kenyans streamed into polling places. The turnout was tremendous, around 86 percent. Some people waited 10 hours on their feet, without any food or drink, under a punishing sun, to scratch an X next to their favored candidates. And this election was especially complicated. The reforms after the disastrous vote in 2007 called for a reinvigorated emphasis on local government, to minimize the winner-take-all nature of Kenyan presidential elections.
On March 4, Kenyans streamed into polling places. The turnout was tremendous, around 86 percent. Some people waited 10 hours on their feet, without any food or drink, to get to the ballot box.
This time, voters chose governors and senators, county representatives and women’s representatives, casting six different ballots into six different plastic tubs, spawning an abnormally high number of rejected ballots, including ones put in the wrong tub, for example.
But problems started almost immediately. A new biometric voter identification system failed, and then, after the polls closed, the electronic system to transmit results directly from the polling places to election headquarters crashed. Mr. Odinga’s side said it was a conspiracy. The election commission said it was an accident. Election officials then had to tally the results manually, which took days and opened up more possibilities for fraud.
The actual voting was carried out in a remarkably peaceful manner. (Although several police officers were attacked in the Mombasa area, those episodes might not have been related to the election itself.)
Kenya remained peaceful — but anxious — while all this was being sorted out. Mr. Odinga, Mr. Kenyatta and other leaders of all stripes urged their followers not to riot or protest. Television stations played peace messages around the clock.
But problems began to crop up almost immediately. A new biometric voter identification system, in which voters were supposed to verify their identities by a computer scan of their thumbprints, failed across the country. In some places, poll workers were sent to rural areas that had no electricity and given no spare batteries for their computers, which died within hours.
On March 9, the election commission declared Mr. Kenyatta the winner, saying he had squeaked past the 50 percent threshold to avoid a runoff by less than one-tenth of 1 percent. Mr. Odinga, who won about 43 percent, then filed his lawsuit.
Then, after the polls closed, a second computer malfunction hit. A new system to transmit results directly from the polling places to election headquarters in Nairobi crashed. Mr. Odinga’s side said it was a conspiracy. The election commission said it was an accident. Either way, officials had to tally the results manually, which took days and opened up more possibilities for fraud. The Supreme Court itself discovered dozens of errors and discrepancies in the vote tallying after it ordered an audit of some results.
On Saturday night, after the Supreme Court upheld Mr. Kenyatta’s victory, protests broke out in several slum areas of Nairobi, the capital, and in Kisumu, Mr. Odinga’s ethnic stronghold. His supporters tried to barricade roads with burning tires, but police officers shot in the air and chased them away.
Kenya remained anxious but peaceful while all this was being sorted out. Mr. Odinga, Mr. Kenyatta and other leaders of all stripes urged their followers not to riot or protest. The national police service banned any protests. Television and radio stations played peace messages around the clock, telling Kenyans to accept the results, no matter how disappointed they were.
In court, Mr. Odinga’s lawyers attacked the election commission, saying that it had committed “grave errors” and that the election needed to be rerun. The commission fired back, saying that “in every election, votes get stolen” and that Mr. Odinga was just being a sore loser.
Mr. Kenyatta’s lawyers did not dispute that there had been some irregularities; they just chalked it up to human fallibility, saying there was no mischief, no conspiracy, just “one or two clerical errors.”
