High Court rules national tallying centre results are final

In a ruling dismissing a petition, the High Court upheld the finality of national election results, dismissing claims that the process was unconstitutional or unjust. The court affirmed that the verification at polling stations should take precedence over electronic transmissions, reinforcing the duty of constituency returning officers.

Section 39(1C) of the Elections Act, coupled with Regulations 83(2), allows for the aggregation and verification of presidential votes at the national level. The court emphasized that this step was necessary to ensure candidates met constitutional thresholds: 50% of all votes cast nationwide, and at least 25% in more than half of the counties.

Omtatah, the petitioner, argued that the Constitution reserves the power to tally, verify, and declare results at the constituency level, but the court rejected this, stating such a requirement could not be confirmed at this level. The judges clarified that the national aggregation is not an unfair burden but a logical step, required to verify the dual threshold set by the Constitution.

They dismissed allegations of differential treatment, saying it was not contrary to Article 27. The court also declined to rule against all provisions of Sections 39(1C) and 39(1G), finding that Omtatah had sufficiently argued the central issue of the constitutionality of constituency result finality. The judges urged lawmakers to consider reforms ahead of the 2027 General Election, suggesting that election laws should be neutral and designed without bias towards any group, based on philosopher John Rawls' "veil of ignorance" principle.