One clear sign of election rigging is voting patterns that defy all logic.
I looked at results of several polling stations in 2 Mt Kenya counties, and noticed something very peculiar.
Voters in several polling stations neighbouring each other – meaning neighbouring villages – appeared to vote in a very strange manner.
Let me call them polling stations A, B, C, D, E, F (I have rounded off the presidential vote result percentages).
Polling Station A: Ruto = 96%; Raila = 3%
Polling Station B: Ruto = 73%; Raila = 26%
Polling Station C: Ruto = 98%; Raila = 1%
Polling Station D: Ruto = 80%; Raila = 19%
Polling Station E: Ruto = 97%; Raila = 2%
Polling Station F: Ruto = 78%; Raila = 21%
This type of voting, in a generally single tribe area, in a Kenyan presidential election is not possible.
Either results in polling stations A, C & E are REAL and results in B, D & F are MANIPULATED; or
Results in polling stations B, D & F are REAL and results in A, C & E are MANIPULATED.
NOTE: If they could successfully rig results in 1 polling station, without raising any suspicion, they definitely rigged in many other polling stations too.
However, what is needed is solid proof of how this rigging was done.
This is a very serious criminal matter, and forensic experts from DCI should help unravel this mystery.
There is not much time to do this, since this evidence needs to be available within 7 days, for use in Supreme Court.
Therefore, DCI experts should get on this case right away.
They should concentrate on just a few neighbouring polling stations, in generally single tribe areas, where the votes for the 2 presidential candidates show extreme variance.
This rigging scheme must be exposed.
It is not acceptable that a presidential candidate who won by more than 2 million votes is denied his genuine victory.
Africa News Now 