Petitions a waste of time, only voters can question poll's validity - Ahmednasir

Solicitor General Njee Muturi with President Uhuru Kenyatta lawyers Ahmednasir Abdullahi and Fred Ngatia after the status conference of the presidential election petition at the Supreme Court in Nairobi, November 14, 2017.

Only those who vote have a right to challenge the validity of presidential elections, President Uhuru Kenyatta has told the Supreme Court.
Through lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi, Uhuru noted petitioners opposing his victory did not vote in the October 26 re-run.
One of the two cases was filed by activists Njonjo Mue of ICJ and MUHURI's Khelef Khalifa while the other was by former Kilome MP Harun Mwau.
Ahmednasir said on Thursday: "A person who can challenge an election is a person, not just a registered voter, but a person who exercised that right (to vote)."
He asked the judges to deconstruct article 140 and reiterated that not just anyone can challenge the validity of an election.

"If you don't deconstruct that article, you will be allowing anyone to pursue an election petition as a game of chance," he said.
The lawyer told the Supreme Court it is wasting its time listening to the petitioners as their concerns are not based on public interest and should be discarded.
"This petition is a waste of time. They did not exercise their civic rights. The last petition is nothing more but a fascination of lay men. It has nothing to do with public interest...it is a proposal for donor funding," he said.

Right versus decision
But he was put to task to explain how he knew the petitioners had not voted.
"Do you have evidence that they did not vote?" Chief Justice David Maraga posed.
Ahmednasir said the petitioners had not written anywhere in their affidavit that they had.
"In the affidavit, they say they are registered but there is no place where they say they voted...the petitioners say there were no election," he noted. "From the pleadings, it is clear they did not participate in the October election."
Justice Njoki Ndung'u also asked the lawyer to explain the right to vote and the right not to vote.
"Does it mean I cannot come to court if have not voted?" she posed.
Ahmednasir replied: "There is no right of 'no right not to vote'. It is a decision not to vote," he said. "The entire petition is premised on there being no election."
Earlier, Uhuru told the Supreme Court the nominations dispute cannot be a basis for cancelling his win last month.
His legal team, led by Fred Ngatia, argued that the fresh presidential election did not need nominations.
The lawyer noted the process is only necessary during a general election and in the event the office of president becomes vacant.
Ngatia defended the electoral commission's failure to hold the primaries which form the basis of presidential petitions.