What is the basis of Odinga's petition in Supreme Court? Raila Odinga, the failed presidential candidate in the recent elections in Keny...

What is the basis of Odinga's petition in Supreme Court?

Raila Odinga, the failed presidential candidate in the recent elections in Kenya, has filed a legal challenge against the results, in which William Ruto was declared the winner.

We have been looking at aspects of the legal case presented by Mr Odinga.

Did the head of the election commission do something wrong?

An important part of Raila Odinga's case is related to the position of the Chairman of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), Wafula Chebukati.

Mr Odinga says that he should not have announced William Ruto as the winner without the agreement of the majority of the commissioners of the commission, thus "not exceeding" their professional duties.

We understand that four of the seven commissioners did not support the announcement of the results of the presidential election.

But there is a different definition of the authority Mr Chebukati has.

Some experts believe that under the constitution of Kenya, he alone is given the authority to announce the results of the presidential election, acting as the returning officer of the presidential vote.

They also explain the fact that he is legally obliged to do so within seven days from the date the election was held.

However, other legal opinions claim that under the 2011 IEBC Act, Mr Chebukati can only announce what the commissioner has "summed up and verified."

Mr Odinga claims this did not happen because of disagreement among the commissioners.

This is what the highest Court of Kenya will have to solve.

Is Mr Odinga right about the difference in the number of voters who turned out to vote?

Odinga's legal complaint also states that the official number of people who voted differed from the percentage given by election officials of the total number of voters who turned out to vote.

Mr Chebukati previously announced the turnout of 65.4% of voters.

Mr Odinga says this number would mean that 14.5 million voters must have voted, considering the total number of voters who were invited to vote.

The final official tally of valid votes was 14.2 million (and even if you added the spoiled votes, you'd get about 14.3 million votes cast). Therefore, the team of Mr Odinga's lawyers claims that "the commission has failed to explain where the more than 250,000 votes cast in the election are removed from the voters who voted on paper."

Odinga's explanation in short is correct. However, he uses a number (65.4%) that Mr Chebukati shortly afterwards corrected and put 64.6% - a number that is correct and shows the full number of people who voted.

So Mr Odinga can claim that the commissioner initially made a mistake, but this was quickly corrected by Mr Chebukati on the same day.

The final official number of voters, after all the votes were cast and verified, was 64.8% of the voters.

Was there a difference in votes at the initial level?

On election day, voters weren't just choosing a new president. They were electing governors, senators, parliamentarians and women's representatives and members of county assemblies.

Mr Odinga says there was an inexplicable difference in the total number of votes cast for different seats in the same areas.

For example, in Kirinyaga County in central Kenya, he says 23,000 more people voted for president than for governor, according to unconfirmed media figures.

In some areas, Mr Odinga's lawyers claim that the votes for the presidency were fewer than those for other seats, something they say "cannot happen in normal circumstances."

The difference in the number of votes cast may be due to some differences. Also, prisoners are allowed to vote to elect only the president - and not candidates for other seats - but that would not make a big difference.

It may turn out to be an insignificant difference, but at this stage it is impossible to identify this because there is no data from the electoral commission.