I have actively participated in all aspects of the electoral process either directly or through agents of the Jubilee Coalition and TNA. I can unequivocally state that in my view the 1st Respondent and its staff, including the 2nd Respondent, have conducted the entire process with remarkable diligence, efficiency and in full fidelity to the standards established in the Constitution and all the electoral laws notwithstanding logistical and technological problems encountered on 4th March 2013.

2. The difference between the votes cast in my favour and those cast in favour of the Petitioner is 832,887. In all humility, the said difference is very significant and emphatically demonstrates the resolve of the people of Kenya to exercise their free and sovereign will. 3. At a press conference held subsequent to the election the Petitioner disclosed that he would contest the results of the election in court because he believed that he won the election by 52% - 53% having been so advised by foreign journalists who had seen “exit polls” results prepared by an unknown entity. 4. During the 21 months or so that the 1st Respondent has been in existence, it has outdone itself in establishing and overseeing the creation of a very solid statutory and legal framework for the conduct of free, fair and credible elections. In my very respectful assessment, which I humbly invite this Honourable Court to share, the 1 st Respondent has also scrupulously complied with such statutory requirements within the limits of human capacity. 5. I am a firm and passionate believer in Kenyan institutions, some imperfections notwithstanding, and in the sovereign right of the Kenyan people to reform and improve such institutions without disparaging them in the manner the Petitioner has done. The 1st Respondent has, in my view, acquitted itself very well under very difficult circumstances and is to be commended and not vilified. 6. I am aware that soon after the BVR tender process commenced by the 1st Respondent was terminated in June 2012, the Petitioner and other senior members of ODM held a press conference at which they demanded that the 1st Respondent reverts to the manual registration of voters. I now produce a recording of the said press conference which is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijnglywxdmQ and is produced to this court in electronic form contained in an envelope marked “UK9”.

7. I am also aware that in the United States of America, some states have taken the step of abandoning electronic systems in favour of ballot papers. I now produce an article published in Time Magazine on 3rd November 2007 titled “Voting out e-voting machines”. The article is marked “UK10”. 8. There is no legal requirement for the transmission of final election results electronically. Indeed, the 2nd Respondent is obliged by law to announce the results on the basis of manual Form 34’s.

9. In response to the allegation that Kencall co-hosted servers for TNA and the 1st Respondent, I now produce an affidavit sworn by Nicholas Alexander Nesbitt on behalf of Kencall setting the record straight. The affidavit is marked “UK14”. Also annexed hereto and marked “UK14A” is an affidavit sworn by an ICT expert Stephen Kanyatte Mwangi, which provides further clarification on pertinent issues.

10. I nevertheless wish to state very firmly that the allegation that the voter register was unlawfully tampered with after the registration period had ended so as to confer a benefit to me is deceitful, irresponsible and a false allegation peddled by the Petitioner so as to attract unjustified sympathy and inflame public passions. 11. Nearly all local and international observers and monitors who were accredited by the 1 st Respondent have issued preliminary reports stating that the election was substantially free, fair and credible notwithstanding the minor irregularities and other logistical problems experienced during the election process.

12. The Petitioner has, subsequent to the announcement of the results, repeatedly stated that the election was “stolen” from him and that the 3rd and 4th Respondents are “criminals who should be in jail”. I now produce a video clip depicting the said speech by the Petitioner, which is in electronic form contained in an envelope marked ”UK 19”. 13. The Petitioner and his agents, particularly one Johnstone Muthama, have repeatedly engaged in hate speech and incitement in violation of the provisions of Article 33(2), the Electoral Code of Conduct and the National Cohesion and Integration Act so as to:

a. Undermine the electoral process b. Compromise the fair adjudication of this petition; and c. Subvert the free and sovereign will of the people of Kenya expressed on 4th March 2013.

I now produce a summary of news reports marked “UK 20” which identify instances of show the Petitioner inflaming and inciting public passions before and after the elections. 14. The public utterances by the Petitioner since the election when seen against the orders sought in the Petition are so broad and ungovernable that it appears to me that the Petitioner seems intent on provoking a constitutional leadership crisis that would enable him to negotiate his way to government. The utterances by the petitioner demonstrate beyond peradventure that he would only consider an election free, fair and democratic if he were declared the winner. I urge this Honourable Court to protect this nation by rejecting this irresponsible and unlawful attempt to secure power notwithstanding the resounding loss suffered at the General Elections.