A curious case of mismatching serial numbers has been noted in the report on the vote recount and vote tallying of the select polling stations as was ordered by the supreme court.
In a report tabled after the recount to the Supreme Court, it was curiously noted that serial numbers that had been noted, turned out to be different from the ones after the exercise.
The report read,
“A total of 45 presidential ballot boxes were availed for scrutiny. While 54 ballot boxes were expected, IEBC indicated that 9 fell on what they termed ‘non-existent’ polling stations and were therefore not available, this could probably be attributed to typos in the order/request or mismatch,” the report read in introduction.
“On arrival of the ballot boxes, we did visual inspects and noted that: the boxes looked intact and clean, and the seals were in place; majority of the boxes did not have form 34A affixed to them as is the norm; each ballot box was accompanied by the Polling Station Diary,” the report continued.
“After receipt of the ballot boxes, actual scrutiny commenced on each ballot box. Generally, the following observations were cross-cutting in numerous ballot boxes,”
The report read on, before delivering into the issue of serial numbers.
“In numerous ballot boxes, the serial numbers of seals affixed to the ballot boxes did not match those indicated in the Polling Station Diary. In other cases, the entries in the Polling Station Diary had been overwritten to hide the true serial numbers for the seals,” the report read.
“In numerous ballot boxes, the duplicate of form 34A was not available inside the ballot box thus casting doubt on the credibility of the “original” form 34A used to declare results when the duplicate is not independently available within the box to confirm its authenticity,
“Book 2 of Form 34A was supposed to be securely sealed within the ballot box, unused. In numerous cases the book was missing from the box. This cast doubt on where the book was and whether it had been used elsewhere against IEBC’s own commitment that it won’t be used during the elections.”
Ballot boxes arriving for the recount
The report read on, giving more clarifications.
“In numerous cases, the manual register was not available within the box. This casts doubt on how the manual register was used, or how many entries were made therein. This was contrary to IEBC’s own directions to the officers as communicated to presidential candidates,”
It was also observed, as noted in the report, that in a majority of the cases there was no form 32 within the ballot boxes. The form could confirm how the manual register was used thus giving accurate figures on those identified through the manual register.
The report further noted in numerous cases, the various materials were not secured within sealed envelopes. Within the evidence of seals being inconsistent, this cast doubt on the credibility of the contents of the ballot boxes.
IEBC Chair Wafula Chebukati at the Bomas of Kenya
Specific to the ballot boxes:
1. Majengo Primary School Station 1 – the following were observed:
a. There was no record of the aperture seal serial number in the Polling Station Diary. The authenticity of the seal on the ballot box could not, therefore, be confirmed.
b. The ballot box did not have form 34A affixed to its wall.
c. All the seals on the ballot box had serial numbers recorded in the Polling Station Diary but the same were overwritten and altered to make them ineligible and cast doubt on their authenticity.
d. There was no Form 32 in the ballot to confirm how the manual register was used.
e. The duplicate of form 34A was not placed inside the ballot box and was therefore not available.
f. Book 2 of form 34A was not available in the ballot box.
g. A count of ballots attained by Raila Odinga showed he had 129 votes, while the form 34A on the IEBC portal showed a less vote of 128.
2. Majengo Primary School Station 2 – the following were observed:
a. There was no record of the aperture seal serial number in the Polling Station Diary. The authenticity of the seal on the ballot box could not, therefore, be confirmed.
b. The ballot box did not have form 34A affixed to its wall.
c. There was no Form 32 in the ballot to confirm how the manual register was used.
d. The duplicate of form 34A was not placed inside the ballot box and was therefore not available.
e. Unused Book 2 of form 34A was available in the ballot box.
3. Mvita Primary School Station 1 – the following were observed:
a. There was no record of the aperture seal serial number in the Polling Station Diary. The authenticity of the seal on the ballot box could not, therefore, be confirmed.
b. The ballot box did not have form 34A affixed to its wall.
c. The cast ballots were not secured in a sealed envelope.
d. The duplicate of form 34A was available but not stamped.
e. Unused Book 2 of form 34A was not available in the ballot box.
4. Mvita Primary School Station 2 – the following were observed:
a. The record of the aperture seal was overwritten in the Polling Station Diary thus casting doubt on its credibility.
b. The ballot box had form 34A affixed to its wall.
c. The duplicate of form 34A was available but not stamped.
d. Unused Book 2 of form 34A was not available in the ballot box.
5. Mvita Primary School Station 3 – the following were observed:
a. The ballot box did not have form 34A affixed to its wall.
b. The duplicate of form 34A was available but not stamped.
c. Unused Book 2 of form 34A was not available in the ballot box.
d. Form 32 was not available to confirm use of manual register.
6. Mvita Primary School Station 4 – the following were observed:
a. The ballot box did not have form 34A affixed to its wall.
b. The duplicate of form 34A was available but not stamped.
c. Unused Book 2 of form 34A was not available in the ballot box.
d. Form 32 was not available to confirm the use of the manual register.
7. Mvita Primary School Station 5 – the following were observed:
a. The aperture seal’s serial number was different from the one recorded in the Polling Station Diary thus lending doubt to the authenticity of the seal or credibility of the content of the ballot box.
b. The ballot seals’ serial numbers recorded in the Polling Station Diary were altered and overwritten thus casting doubt on their credibility.
c. Form 32 was not available to confirm use of the manual register.
8. Mvita Primary School Station 6 – the following were observed:
a. The ballot box did not have form 34A affixed to its wall.
b. The duplicate of form 34A was available but not stamped.
c. Form 32 was not available to confirm the use of the manual register yet the manual register itself was available with 232 crossings indicating it was used but without the required statutory forms.
9. Mvita Primary School Station 7 – the following were observed:
a. The ballot box did not have form 34A affixed to its wall.
b. The ballot papers and contents of the ballot box were not secured in sealed envelopes.
c. The manual register was not enclosed in the ballot box.
d. The duplicate of form 34A was available but not stamped.
e. Unused Book 2 of form 34A was not available in the ballot box.
f. Form 32 was not available to confirm use of manual register.
g. There was inconsistency in the number of registered voters as recorded in form 34A and as presented in the register.
