The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission on Friday accused Azimio legal team of presenting fake logs after the scrutiny of the public portal.
Lawyer Phillip Murgor had earlier shown court what he claimed were logs from the IEBC server which showed that several foreigners had accessed the system days before and after elections.
However, Lawyer Dennis Nkarichia for IEBC claimed that the said logs were not part of the scrutiny report that was produced in court by the registrar.
This led Justice Isaac Lenaola at the end of presentations to ask Murgor to go to the registrar’s page which showed that the said foreigners accessed it before election day and not after as Azimio had claimed.
Murgor then clarified to court that the report he presented was not the one by the court but their own logs that he claimed they also got from IEBC.
In their submissions, Nkarichia said IEBC fully complied with the orders on the servers, except for the ones on the policy on password securities.
“Access was provided to the servers. Agents were provided supervised access to the servers,” he said.
He told court that the allegations that they were denied access to the server are inconsistent with the registrar’s remarks.
“The issue that we did not agree on was partnership agreements which we provided to the court under seal. Parties were also provided with forensic images of Form 34C,” IEBC said.
Nkarichia further submitted that the review of the access logs did not show any suspicious activity according to the report by the registrar of the Supreme Court.
On the scrutiny of ballot boxes, IEBC through lawyer Emmanuel Wetangula said the report states that out of the 45 stations counted, there was no variance in 40 stations.
He said the rest can be attributed to human error which has been corrected in an affidavit provided to court.
“In one station in Kakamega where form 34A was not availed, an affidavit had been provided,” he said.
Despite the absence of counterfoils, Wetangula said each ballot counted matched with those that were given to the candidates.
“Every ballot that was counted tallies with that which was given to every presidential candidate. The allegations that votes were taken from one candidate and given to another do not stand,” he said.
President-elect William Ruto’s team also said the scrutiny report showed that the elections had been credible.
Lawyer Hillary Sigei told court that even on sampled 45 polling stations, recount confirmed that the Forms 34A were not altered as claimed by the petitioners.
On the issue of errors that were noted in the report, Sigei said given the fact that in Kenya six elections are conducted in one day, errors are bound to occur.
Sigei said that there were no irregularities that occurred as has been alleged to court.
“No discrepancies were found, the numbers complied with what each candidate got in the elections as indicated by the results declared by the IEBC. No evidence has been placed before you to impeach the forms 34A,” Sigei argued.
Lawyer Omwanza Ombati also representing Ruto said from the report filed by the registrar, there was not a single deletion of form 34A from the IEBC server.
Willis Otieno, who represented Khelef Khalifa, said that from the basic information provided to agents for scrutiny, IEBC exposed how vulnerable their systems are.
He claimed that the server specification they gave them is even smaller than the laptops.
Otieno said nowadays, elections are stolen via technology claiming machines are voting for Kenyans.
“In this case, we have demonstrated that the technology we deployed in the election, even this Supreme Court cannot access it,” Otieno said.
WATCH: The latest videos from the Star