A candidate in the just concluded AAK Presidential election has dismissed the exercise, saying it was riddled with malpractices that disadvantaged her, resulting in her sole competitor Florence Nyole being declared winner.
In a statement, Marylyn Musyimi raised a number of issues including delay in commencement of the voting and inability of some eligible members to vote in her favour. She also alleged that her supporters never received acknowledgement that they had voted for her while her competitor’s supporters did.
Maylyn says she does not intend to appeal citing lack of faith in the scrutineers.
Florence Nyole was pronounced winner and crowned during the Association’s AGM and Gala held on 29th March 2023.
Below is Marylyn’s full statement:
STATEMENT ON THE CONDUCT OF THE AAK ELECTIONS 2023
Tuesday 28th March marked a sad day for democracy and the credibility of the AAK and it’s Elections Service Provider -Infotrak. Infotrak was contracted by the AAK to carry out its elections via SMS and email platforms, with voting set to commence at 6am and close at 6pm on Tuesday 28th March,2023. The following emergent issues however began to cast a shadow of doubt on the credibility of the process.
1. Voting did not commence until well after 8am, and by as late as 5.30pm some voters still had not received their ballot. Some voters never received their ballot entirely.
2. A number of voters were unable to vote B, which was the option under my name. They received a return message indicating that they had already voted.
3. These same voters when they tried to vote option A, even though they had already attempted to vote option B, were acknowledged by the system as votes for A, and received a confirmation to that effect complete with the name of the candidate. Not a single vote for B received acknowledgement as to who they had voted for.
4. Safaricom numbers of non -AAK members were able to cast a vote for A, the same was not true for B.
5. Votes for Candidate B returned a confirmation as having voted for candidate A.
6. Later in the day, voting was migrated from the sms platform to an email one, ostensibly because it would be more secure. However, I received evidence that even this email platform was compromised.
7. The name displayed in the ballot omitted my first name without reference to, or consent from me.
I raised my concerns in writing to the Chairman of the scrutineers and was invited to a nighttime meeting on the same day (28th) from 9pm to around midnight, at which both candidates, committee of scrutineers, Infotrak and the system auditor were present. My concerns were one by one excused by explanation at this meeting. At the close of this meeting I was required to by 1pm of the next day, 29th March disclose the identities and numbers of the voting screenshots I had cited. This I did. A further meeting was held at the venue of the AGM just two hours to the AGM at which the same process of explaining away my concerns was repeated and it was impressed on me that since the numbers I had cited had their votes tallied as mine I should accept and move on. At the conclusion of this meeting, I was asked to state whether I was happy with the discussion to which I responded I was not happy and left it to the scrutineers to conclude on and prepare their report to the AGM. The chairman of the scrutineers then proceeded to prepare and announce the outcome of a clearly contested election. Concerns about which were raised numerous times on the floor of the AGM. These concerns were put down with admonitions of ‘accept and move on’ by some very senior members of the Association. I was further put on the spot at the AGM to state my position on the matter, and I publicly declared my dissatisfaction with the conduct of the elections. While I presented all my concerns and evidence in writing, I am yet to receive the report of the scrutineers to the AGM, or the report of the system auditor or service provider in regard to my concerns. The process of investigating the concerns raised was evidently rushed and not accorded the time and thoroughness that such a breach of credibility in an election should have been. It is because of these happenings that I find it necessary to make public these serious concerns. The Chairman of the Scrutineers and by extension the AAK, by glossing over these matters has set a very dangerous precedent. I accompany this statement with evidence of my concerns. That said I am loath to subject myself to the mockery of an appeal to the same scrutineers. I am a leader and not a politician. The position I sought is one of service. I will continue to lead without a title and with my conscience and reputation intact. END.
- Marylyn Mumbua Musyimi. 31st March 2023.
